Discussion
There was a bit of interaction on the various differences between the AMG engines used by AML in the ‘what have you done thread’ - and some of the comments were ‘go find a room for that’…. 
So here it is. I read through the comments and noted some interesting comments about AML hoping to put IP into the Mercedes supplied lumps, AML giving the bought in engines an ‘AE’ number, and maybe even AML hoping to have their own IP associated with the engines, and have them produced in UK by the low volume specialist engine assembly outfit ‘Autocraft’ now used for the limited runs of AMLs own AE31 V12 since the Ford agreement ended and the Cologne facility closed back in 2021 and 2022.
I find these ideas that AM could somehow have any ‘ownership’ or ‘IP’ associated with the AMG engines, just because they are a customer quite interesting. IMHO, automotive OEM will tightly protect their IP - and yes even now, the top end or Jewel ICE remain core IP, even if not being used or forming a part of a current or future product line up. Things can change.
Fact is that the engine, as a bought in component assembly will be treated in the same way as any other bought in component under a Tier 2 supply agreement. It will be to a spec, and it will be warranted by the supplier, like all OEM, AM will want to transfer as many of the risks associated with in service, in warranty component failure to the supplier.
This means one thing - Mercedes of course remain in full control of their fundamental design of the engine and all of its subcomponents, and its own T3 supply/value chain. The engine and its IP is and will remain a 100% Mercedes AMG unit. No matter what their customer AML might wish, state, claim or communicate to their more gullible customers.
There were comments on the M177 engines that AM source from Merc-AMG being built to an ‘AM spec’. Examples cited are metal sump pans and different exhaust manifolds. No problem, that changes nothing, and is not an issue for AMG due to the hand built nature of the units. If AM wants the sole AMG tech building the lump to stamp the words ‘Aston Martin’ into the block, no problem, assuming no internal form or function deviation from that already validated. Hence bolting on slightly different (material) sumps and packaging or noise requirement driven subtlety different manifolds during assembly won’t usually be a major issue.
Where things will get more interesting is where different turbochargers are used, or higher boost pressures or different cams are requested in the interest of more power. There is no way AML would assume the risk, so any new ‘build standard’ (eg AMGs own internal M178 variant used IIRC in the black series, which featured a dry sump) and the output of the new standard will have to have previously been validated internally by AMG for them to underwrite the warranty. Validation means thousands of hours of very costly testing of multiple units on different load-cycle test beds, then tear down and wear analysis prior to sign off. That’s how it works, which was also alluded to in the comments.
As long as engines are supplied under a relatively standard T2 supply agreement, the spec of engine supplied to AML, no matter what the power level or size of turbocharger or material of the sump pan or the profile of inlet cam it will be engineered, validated, built, supplied and warrantied, and by completely IP owned by Mercedes-AMG. This will only change under a new agreement where AML purchase IP either wholly or purchase rights under a licence agreement, which would not make any sense given the direction of the industry and the cost and dozens of new engine component supply chain agreements to be negotiated.
By comparison - the V12 turbo was engineered by AML. AML own all the IP and all the subcomponent supply agreements. They can thus have it built anywhere they want, be it in a Ford facility in Germany or a low volume assembly specialist in UK. Sadly, and quite unlike that fabulous AMG engine, money was not spent on the development required to homologate the V12 for global current/upcoming gasoline emissions standards (requiring GPF etc), therefore anything with that engine in it has to be a limited edition (sub 100 in number) special as these are homologation exempt.
So here it is. I read through the comments and noted some interesting comments about AML hoping to put IP into the Mercedes supplied lumps, AML giving the bought in engines an ‘AE’ number, and maybe even AML hoping to have their own IP associated with the engines, and have them produced in UK by the low volume specialist engine assembly outfit ‘Autocraft’ now used for the limited runs of AMLs own AE31 V12 since the Ford agreement ended and the Cologne facility closed back in 2021 and 2022.
I find these ideas that AM could somehow have any ‘ownership’ or ‘IP’ associated with the AMG engines, just because they are a customer quite interesting. IMHO, automotive OEM will tightly protect their IP - and yes even now, the top end or Jewel ICE remain core IP, even if not being used or forming a part of a current or future product line up. Things can change.
Fact is that the engine, as a bought in component assembly will be treated in the same way as any other bought in component under a Tier 2 supply agreement. It will be to a spec, and it will be warranted by the supplier, like all OEM, AM will want to transfer as many of the risks associated with in service, in warranty component failure to the supplier.
This means one thing - Mercedes of course remain in full control of their fundamental design of the engine and all of its subcomponents, and its own T3 supply/value chain. The engine and its IP is and will remain a 100% Mercedes AMG unit. No matter what their customer AML might wish, state, claim or communicate to their more gullible customers.
There were comments on the M177 engines that AM source from Merc-AMG being built to an ‘AM spec’. Examples cited are metal sump pans and different exhaust manifolds. No problem, that changes nothing, and is not an issue for AMG due to the hand built nature of the units. If AM wants the sole AMG tech building the lump to stamp the words ‘Aston Martin’ into the block, no problem, assuming no internal form or function deviation from that already validated. Hence bolting on slightly different (material) sumps and packaging or noise requirement driven subtlety different manifolds during assembly won’t usually be a major issue.
Where things will get more interesting is where different turbochargers are used, or higher boost pressures or different cams are requested in the interest of more power. There is no way AML would assume the risk, so any new ‘build standard’ (eg AMGs own internal M178 variant used IIRC in the black series, which featured a dry sump) and the output of the new standard will have to have previously been validated internally by AMG for them to underwrite the warranty. Validation means thousands of hours of very costly testing of multiple units on different load-cycle test beds, then tear down and wear analysis prior to sign off. That’s how it works, which was also alluded to in the comments.
As long as engines are supplied under a relatively standard T2 supply agreement, the spec of engine supplied to AML, no matter what the power level or size of turbocharger or material of the sump pan or the profile of inlet cam it will be engineered, validated, built, supplied and warrantied, and by completely IP owned by Mercedes-AMG. This will only change under a new agreement where AML purchase IP either wholly or purchase rights under a licence agreement, which would not make any sense given the direction of the industry and the cost and dozens of new engine component supply chain agreements to be negotiated.
By comparison - the V12 turbo was engineered by AML. AML own all the IP and all the subcomponent supply agreements. They can thus have it built anywhere they want, be it in a Ford facility in Germany or a low volume assembly specialist in UK. Sadly, and quite unlike that fabulous AMG engine, money was not spent on the development required to homologate the V12 for global current/upcoming gasoline emissions standards (requiring GPF etc), therefore anything with that engine in it has to be a limited edition (sub 100 in number) special as these are homologation exempt.
Edited by Calinours on Wednesday 22 November 12:47
I don't know much about the alterations that AML make to the M-B 4 litre V8TT engine, so can only apply logic.
It did seem odd to me, that AML supposedly fit different camshafts, a different sump, print Aston Martin on the plastic engine cover, and (apparently) think the intellectual property rights for the M-B engine, then belong to AML.
If I changed a few words in a book, would the copyright for the whole book then belong to me ?
I think Aston Martin are simply the customer of Mercedes-Benz by agreed contract (unlike an Aston Martin designed component being manufactured by a sub-contractor) and so the engine maker 'calls the tune'.
Jon39 said:
It did seem odd to me, that AML supposedly fit different camshafts
I doubt this, unless validated by AMG. It could be a cam profile that AMG have already validated and have chosen not to use. Jon39 said:
a different sump
I doubt this too, unless the internal shape/profile already confirms to one validated by AMG. Otherwise how would AMG/AML know that it wasn't going to suffer from oil surge/starvation during high-G manoeuvrers?Jon39 said:
print Aston Martin on the plastic engine cover
Sure. New moulding (or casting), internal profile as per the AMG item, made from the same material, cosmetic change to the exterior badging. AML funds (and owns) the tooling (so probably the IP as well). So there's some IP to claim, Lawrence.I can contribute some technical info on the M177/M178 platform where the AM engine is derived. I'll give only some of the top level differences on the MB side as this platform is used.
There are two types of differences, of course:
Firmware
Hardware
So, basics - the major difference between the M177 and M178 is Wet Sump vs. Dry Sump. Only the wet sump is used in the AM line.
There are at least 4 different versions of the M178 dry sump motor (and probably a 5th as used in the factory race cars).
Starting at the bottom of the M178, two versions were used in production. The same basic hardware between the AMG GT and the AMG GTS, the difference being a simple firmware one, specifically boost. A difference of 0.2 Bar produces approximately 50 more HP. The motor is higher compression and the higher boost version one (approx 503hp) appears the be the same spec except for the wet sump part (M177), used in the AM line.
The next version of the M178 platform had both a hardware change and firmware change. This version is used in the GTR level car. The bottom end is modified, compression in this one is lower than the entry level engine, turbos are upgraded as is firmware giving street variations in the 550hp range.
Then the version used in the AMG GT Black Series is a much different version. This one is a flat plane crankshaft with many different components and obviously, a firmware difference.
The M177/M178 platform has much flexibility and can go in numerous different directions based on marketing needs. I can only imaging that certain variations of this platform were not on the table for sale to AM, and I don't imagine AM had very much leeway in changing basic hardware components such as camshafts (my belief).
Also, from a marketing standpoint, MB likely leveraged certain version of this platform for their own market timing making AMs requests limited which could change over time.
There are two types of differences, of course:
Firmware
Hardware
So, basics - the major difference between the M177 and M178 is Wet Sump vs. Dry Sump. Only the wet sump is used in the AM line.
There are at least 4 different versions of the M178 dry sump motor (and probably a 5th as used in the factory race cars).
Starting at the bottom of the M178, two versions were used in production. The same basic hardware between the AMG GT and the AMG GTS, the difference being a simple firmware one, specifically boost. A difference of 0.2 Bar produces approximately 50 more HP. The motor is higher compression and the higher boost version one (approx 503hp) appears the be the same spec except for the wet sump part (M177), used in the AM line.
The next version of the M178 platform had both a hardware change and firmware change. This version is used in the GTR level car. The bottom end is modified, compression in this one is lower than the entry level engine, turbos are upgraded as is firmware giving street variations in the 550hp range.
Then the version used in the AMG GT Black Series is a much different version. This one is a flat plane crankshaft with many different components and obviously, a firmware difference.
The M177/M178 platform has much flexibility and can go in numerous different directions based on marketing needs. I can only imaging that certain variations of this platform were not on the table for sale to AM, and I don't imagine AM had very much leeway in changing basic hardware components such as camshafts (my belief).
Also, from a marketing standpoint, MB likely leveraged certain version of this platform for their own market timing making AMs requests limited which could change over time.
Edited by skhannes on Wednesday 22 November 11:41
Great input guys, and some interesting background there on the internal developments of the platform done by and for Mercedes-AMG. It does lend some credence to the idea that there may be a handful of pre-validated components (ie cams, turbos, calibrations/maps) that AM may be able to pick and choose from.
I didn’t really mention the equally important element in the mix, the firmware controlling the engine, which will be equally if not more protected/controlled by the IP owner.
In the last decade warranty claims resulting from failures arising from dodgy 3rd party ‘remaps’ on turbocharged engines where discarding emissions control and seriously increasing fuelling and boost (just a remap) can have a spectacular effect on a given engines peak torque and power, often to the detriment of its ability to resist premature failure. OEMs have naturally clamped down hard on that, some consequences are the difficulties that the aftermarket has been having for some years now in gaining access to ECUs, plus all the anti-tamper functions and protections built in. It’s meant that for a few years now the OEMs have been able to detect is someone has messed with the factory calibration, and when they do, the owner usually kisses goodbye to any hope of the factory honouring blown engine claims.
I didn’t really mention the equally important element in the mix, the firmware controlling the engine, which will be equally if not more protected/controlled by the IP owner.
In the last decade warranty claims resulting from failures arising from dodgy 3rd party ‘remaps’ on turbocharged engines where discarding emissions control and seriously increasing fuelling and boost (just a remap) can have a spectacular effect on a given engines peak torque and power, often to the detriment of its ability to resist premature failure. OEMs have naturally clamped down hard on that, some consequences are the difficulties that the aftermarket has been having for some years now in gaining access to ECUs, plus all the anti-tamper functions and protections built in. It’s meant that for a few years now the OEMs have been able to detect is someone has messed with the factory calibration, and when they do, the owner usually kisses goodbye to any hope of the factory honouring blown engine claims.
Mercedes have such a huge range of different power outputs in their various 4 litre V8 models, you would think AML would just pick the power versions they want. Added complexity seems to be involved otherwise.
GT Coupe ................. 469
C63 S ........................ 503
GT S Coupe .............. 515
GT C Coupe ............. 550
GT R Coupe ............. 577
S63 ........................... 603
AMG GT63 S E PERFORMANCE ........ 631
AMG C63 ............................................. 670
Mercedes-AMG GT Black .................. 720
AMG S 63 E PERFORMANCE ............. 791
Jon39 said:
Mercedes have such a huge range of different power outputs in their various 4 litre V8 models, you would think AML would just pick the power versions they want. Added complexity seems to be involved otherwise.
GT Coupe ................. 469
C63 S ........................ 503
GT S Coupe .............. 515
GT C Coupe ............. 550
GT R Coupe ............. 577
S63 ........................... 603
AMG GT63 S E PERFORMANCE ........ 631
AMG C63 ............................................. 670
Mercedes-AMG GT Black .................. 720
AMG S 63 E PERFORMANCE ............. 791
CSK1 said:
The outputs quoted in this list are not for the engine only as some of them are combined ICE/electric power outputs so a bit misleading.
Thank you Olivier. Clearly I compiled my list in too much of a hurry.
Have you any thoughts about why Aston Martin require altered specifications, when there seem to be so many different power outputs to choose from?
There have likely been amendments to and/or changes updates or side agreements and maybe even a complete new supply agreement agreed between Mercedes and AML for supply of future engines. Such commercial supply agreements are typically based on a 5 year term, and variants thereof (ie 5+5, 5+5+5 or 10 with break clause at 5). With supply of the V8 commencing in late 2017, early 2018, any initial 5 yr term would have likely been up for some form of renegotiation in 2022/23.
It is likely that AML have pushed hard for access to the higher power validated derivatives of the M177, and would have likely paid a higher price to secure them. The money would have come at least in part from savings achieved from cutting the V12 development budgets.
Hence the higher power 698/671PS versions made available for DBX707 and DB12, and presumably something similar for the new new Vantage.
It is likely that AML have pushed hard for access to the higher power validated derivatives of the M177, and would have likely paid a higher price to secure them. The money would have come at least in part from savings achieved from cutting the V12 development budgets.
Hence the higher power 698/671PS versions made available for DBX707 and DB12, and presumably something similar for the new new Vantage.
Edited by Calinours on Wednesday 22 November 22:15
Calinours said:
So here it is. I read through the comments and noted some interesting comments about AML hoping to put IP into the Mercedes supplied lumps, AML giving the bought in engines an ‘AE’ number, and maybe even AML hoping to have their own IP associated with the engines, and have them produced in UK by the low volume specialist engine assembly outfit ‘Autocraft’ now used for the limited runs of AMLs own AE31 V12 since the Ford agreement ended and the Cologne facility closed back in 2021 and 2022.
I find these ideas that AM could somehow have any ‘ownership’ or ‘IP’ associated with the AMG engines, just because they are a customer quite interesting. IMHO, automotive OEM will tightly protect their IP - and yes even now, the top end or Jewel ICE remain core IP, even if not being used or forming a part of a current or future product line up. Things can change.
<snip>
This means one thing - Mercedes of course remain in full control of their fundamental design of the engine and all of its subcomponents, and its own T3 supply/value chain. The engine and its IP is and will remain a 100% Mercedes AMG unit. No matter what their customer AML might wish, state, claim or communicate to their more gullible customers.
I haven’t read the other thread, but it’s not uncommon for companies/system developers to do two things:I find these ideas that AM could somehow have any ‘ownership’ or ‘IP’ associated with the AMG engines, just because they are a customer quite interesting. IMHO, automotive OEM will tightly protect their IP - and yes even now, the top end or Jewel ICE remain core IP, even if not being used or forming a part of a current or future product line up. Things can change.
<snip>
This means one thing - Mercedes of course remain in full control of their fundamental design of the engine and all of its subcomponents, and its own T3 supply/value chain. The engine and its IP is and will remain a 100% Mercedes AMG unit. No matter what their customer AML might wish, state, claim or communicate to their more gullible customers.
1) Design systems on a modular basis, using a combination of third party and proprietary elements. It would be possible, in theory to take say a Merc engine and add to it/modify it in a way that was subject to non-Mercedes IP (Merc may not even be aware of all of the IP). Such an approach can be extremely powerful and lucrative.
2) License IP for use in specific products, I.e. allowing a primary manufacturer some limited use of customer IP in order to produce a product to their requirements. Such an arrangement does not result in the complete transfer of said IP between the parties or necessarily allow the other party the ability to use it elsewhere.
Relevant IP doesn’t automatically accrue “just” as a result of being a customer, but IP ownership/usage rights will almost certainly be described in the contracts between the parties.
LTP said:
Sure. New moulding (or casting), internal profile as per the AMG item, made from the same material, cosmetic change to the exterior badging. AML funds (and owns) the tooling (so probably the IP as well). So there's some IP to claim, Lawrence.
What Jon means on the sump front is Mercedes use a plastic sump, AM across the same engine use a metal one. Regarding camshafts it is possible, but the DB12 really is quite different to any Mercedes variant from sump, exhaust, camshafts, compression ratio (lower than all Mercedes variants) and turbos.
Not in chronological order with the posts ITT so far, but I just thought I'd move my old engine-related posts from the What have you done today.... thread to here and tidy up behind me
Taking parts from an existing AMG programme makes perfect sense and I would think (but don't know) changing some of the engine peripherals during dress to suit the AML installation and badging requirements wouldn't affect base engine durability.
Crash testing has mainly been done at the Volvo facility ever since PAG days when Volvo had the safety lead position, in the same way AML used the various production and track facilities of JLR ...until Mercedes, considered an arch JLR competitor, rocked up on the scene.Also, a qualification. While I've been in and around automotive engineering for most of my working life, I'm not a design engineer and haven't actually worked on engines, except very peripherally and tangentially. A lot of words to say I know a little bit, and enough to be dangerous. 
LTP said:
Ninja59 said:
<snip>
This is where in recent time AM have started to build IP on the 4 litre engine, the DB12 in particular builds on this more than previous versions as unlike the 707 engine it does not "recycle" parts Mercedes already had used as such (the 707 essentially using the black series turbos). The camshafts being one particular area than is very specific to the DB12 (and new facelift Vantage). In addition, despite what some might think the DB12 version does not use 707 turbos, but a different variant again from its brothers and sisters.
Your posts indicate that you have an inside track to actual information, but I find this statement surprising, as I would have thought a cam change would require the re-running of the engine durability and emissions programmes by AMG Mercedes, something I wouldn't think they would do lightly as it isn't cheap. This is where in recent time AM have started to build IP on the 4 litre engine, the DB12 in particular builds on this more than previous versions as unlike the 707 engine it does not "recycle" parts Mercedes already had used as such (the 707 essentially using the black series turbos). The camshafts being one particular area than is very specific to the DB12 (and new facelift Vantage). In addition, despite what some might think the DB12 version does not use 707 turbos, but a different variant again from its brothers and sisters.
Taking parts from an existing AMG programme makes perfect sense and I would think (but don't know) changing some of the engine peripherals during dress to suit the AML installation and badging requirements wouldn't affect base engine durability.
LTP said:
Ninja59 said:
"Aston has fitted the V-8 with new camshafts with different profiles, installed larger diameter turbos, completely reworked and replaced the cooling system, and optimized the compression ratio for more performance."
Other things that are not in the public domain as such is all the recent AM platform cars were also tested at Volvo's safety facility....
Well unless AML are now going to be providing the engine warranty I can only assume they persuaded AMG to re-run the durability (the in-vehicle emissions would need to be done by AML anyway due to the different coast-down values and probably inertia class).Other things that are not in the public domain as such is all the recent AM platform cars were also tested at Volvo's safety facility....
Crash testing has mainly been done at the Volvo facility ever since PAG days when Volvo had the safety lead position, in the same way AML used the various production and track facilities of JLR ...until Mercedes, considered an arch JLR competitor, rocked up on the scene.
Edited by LTP on Friday 24th November 11:23
Welcome back Mr Speedraiser, from another who mourns the perhaps inevitable passing of AML’s ability to develop their own unique engines. The good news for you is that it seems like the AML V12 isn’t quite dead, the various supply agreements remain in place and an ability to build it has been retained via specialist UK low volume engine assembly outfit Autocraft. While money hasn’t been spent to develop and validate it sufficiently to conform to the current and upcoming European emissions regs, which I believe to be a further derivative of the current base EU6 for petrol. I understand the AE31 would need further exhaust after treatment, GPF, and I’m not sure how possible that would be with its now ancient port injection. Still, at least V12 owners don’t need to worry about caking the backs of their inlet valves with carbon….
There are exemptions under EU law (UK hasn’t yet diverged, and frankly it would be crazy to, but that’s another subject) for small volumes, production runs of sub 100 so cars using the V12 could still be marketed in the EU and other jurisdictions mirroring their legislation if there were sufficient customers, but it’s likely to be only the high end specials which may carry the blown V12 as an option for some markets, think maybe the Valhalla, or 2026 Vanquish or DBS.
Another exciting V12 option could be some detuned and quieter version of the Valkyries awesome motor, however that is extremely unlikely as the required development would be time and cost prohibitive, just looking at the Valhalla’s service schedule would have most running for the hills. There just aren’t that many billionaires…
In this uncertain world and sadly no future for ICE AML are rightly using perhaps the best and most flexible bought in motor, that merc-AMG V8, and have surely negotiated very different and far more flexible agreements with Mercedes on what they can do with it. The outputs of the variants in the DBX707 and the DB12 appears to already be at and even beyond what Mercedes themselves specify for their own applications without hybridisation or using a high revving flat plane crank setup where the extreme power can be made more with revs as opposed to ever increasing the fuelling/cylinder pressures/torque (eg black series). It kind of makes one wonder if there is something AMG may not be disclosing to AML as regards the impact on long term durability and longevity of these massively boosted and over fuelled direct injection engines, or maybe they are…? Surely AML under Stroll wouldn’t be that cavalier with their customers ? (I choose my words carefully..)
Maybe such things no longer matter so much in this brave new world - of course the updated supply agreement will have Merc-AMG underwriting the engine warranty for the three years, but afterwards? Owners might need to start familiarising themselves with walnut shell blasting process…
There are exemptions under EU law (UK hasn’t yet diverged, and frankly it would be crazy to, but that’s another subject) for small volumes, production runs of sub 100 so cars using the V12 could still be marketed in the EU and other jurisdictions mirroring their legislation if there were sufficient customers, but it’s likely to be only the high end specials which may carry the blown V12 as an option for some markets, think maybe the Valhalla, or 2026 Vanquish or DBS.
Another exciting V12 option could be some detuned and quieter version of the Valkyries awesome motor, however that is extremely unlikely as the required development would be time and cost prohibitive, just looking at the Valhalla’s service schedule would have most running for the hills. There just aren’t that many billionaires…
In this uncertain world and sadly no future for ICE AML are rightly using perhaps the best and most flexible bought in motor, that merc-AMG V8, and have surely negotiated very different and far more flexible agreements with Mercedes on what they can do with it. The outputs of the variants in the DBX707 and the DB12 appears to already be at and even beyond what Mercedes themselves specify for their own applications without hybridisation or using a high revving flat plane crank setup where the extreme power can be made more with revs as opposed to ever increasing the fuelling/cylinder pressures/torque (eg black series). It kind of makes one wonder if there is something AMG may not be disclosing to AML as regards the impact on long term durability and longevity of these massively boosted and over fuelled direct injection engines, or maybe they are…? Surely AML under Stroll wouldn’t be that cavalier with their customers ? (I choose my words carefully..)
Maybe such things no longer matter so much in this brave new world - of course the updated supply agreement will have Merc-AMG underwriting the engine warranty for the three years, but afterwards? Owners might need to start familiarising themselves with walnut shell blasting process…
Edited by Calinours on Wednesday 27th December 10:03
Edited by Calinours on Wednesday 27th December 10:12
Calinours said:
... There are exemptions under EU law for small volumes, production runs of sub 100, so cars using the V12 could still be marketed in the EU and other jurisdictions mirroring their legislation if there were sufficient customers, but it’s likely to be only the high end specials which may carry the blown V12 as an option for some markets, think maybe the Valhalla, or 2026 Vanquish or DBS.
Another exciting V12 option could be some detuned and quieter version of the Valkyries awesome motor, however that is extremely unlikely as the required development would be time and cost prohibitive, just looking at the Valhalla’s service schedule would have most running for the hills. There just aren’t that many billionaires.
Another exciting V12 option could be some detuned and quieter version of the Valkyries awesome motor, however that is extremely unlikely as the required development would be time and cost prohibitive, just looking at the Valhalla’s service schedule would have most running for the hills. There just aren’t that many billionaires.
I am fairly sure that the AML V12 is a physically longer engine, than either the Valkyrie Cosworth V12, or the Valkyrie M-B V8.
Therefore, presumably it might either be difficult or impossible, to make the 5.2 TT V12 fit.
As you say, further time (and money) for even more development must be relevant too.
The Vantage Concept was unveiled in 2003 and production began in 2005 (2 years).
The Valhalla Concept was unveiled in 2019 and it is said, that production might begin in 2025 (at least 6 years).
Only TVR take longer than that (2017 to infinity).
Good that V12 manufacturing is happening though. It took us a long time for us to discover, which UK firm had been awarded the contract.
Jon39 said:
Calinours said:
... There are exemptions under EU law for small volumes, production runs of sub 100, so cars using the V12 could still be marketed in the EU and other jurisdictions mirroring their legislation if there were sufficient customers, but it’s likely to be only the high end specials which may carry the blown V12 as an option for some markets, think maybe the Valhalla, or 2026 Vanquish or DBS.
Another exciting V12 option could be some detuned and quieter version of the Valkyries awesome motor, however that is extremely unlikely as the required development would be time and cost prohibitive, just looking at the Valhalla’s service schedule would have most running for the hills. There just aren’t that many billionaires.
Another exciting V12 option could be some detuned and quieter version of the Valkyries awesome motor, however that is extremely unlikely as the required development would be time and cost prohibitive, just looking at the Valhalla’s service schedule would have most running for the hills. There just aren’t that many billionaires.
I am fairly sure that the AML V12 is a physically longer engine, than either the Valkyrie Cosworth V12, or the Valkyrie M-B V8.
Therefore, presumably it might either be difficult or impossible, to make the 5.2 TT V12 fit.
As you say, further time (and money) for even more development must be relevant too.
The Vantage Concept was unveiled in 2003 and production began in 2005 (2 years).
The Valhalla Concept was unveiled in 2019 and it is said, that production might begin in 2025 (at least 6 years).
Only TVR take longer than that (2017 to infinity).
Good that V12 manufacturing is happening though. It took us a long time for us to discover, which UK firm had been awarded the contract.
I guess a good thing about the continuing albeit small capacity for AE31 production coming to the UK is that it will finally silence all those who continued to claim the V12 was somehow a ‘Ford’ engine because AM continued to use the legacy engine assembly and test capacity in the old AMEP in Ford Cologne to build it until that agreement ended in 2022. Another good thing is the fact that AML thus also will maintain a rebuild facility for exiting AE31 engines in DB11 and DBS. Happy days.
Calinours said:
Jon, like me you are getting your ‘Vals’ mixed up, I mistakenly referred to Valhalla when I meant Valkyrie when referring to the cost of servicing that car, as for yourself it’s the upcoming Valhalla which will have the AMG motor. I have to admit that if AML have been allowed to use the flat plane black series M178 in the Valhalla it will be epic, not that I could ever afford it. Who knows, maybe the Ninja?
I guess a good thing about the continuing albeit small capacity for AE31 production coming to the UK is that it will finally silence all those who continued to claim the V12 was somehow a ‘Ford’ engine because AM continued to use the legacy engine assembly and test capacity in the old AMEP in Ford Cologne to build it until that agreement ended in 2022. Another good thing is the fact that AML thus also will maintain a rebuild facility for exiting AE31 engines in DB11 and DBS. Happy days.
I guess a good thing about the continuing albeit small capacity for AE31 production coming to the UK is that it will finally silence all those who continued to claim the V12 was somehow a ‘Ford’ engine because AM continued to use the legacy engine assembly and test capacity in the old AMEP in Ford Cologne to build it until that agreement ended in 2022. Another good thing is the fact that AML thus also will maintain a rebuild facility for exiting AE31 engines in DB11 and DBS. Happy days.
Quite right Calinours.
As Captain Mainwaring used to say, "I wondered who would be the first to spot that.
CSK1 said:
I have been told that the Valkyrie’s 5 year service plan is being invoiced at €450,000!
Is the required routine engine rebuild extra ?
If they get any ideas about €100,000 for 5 years servicing on the new ultra-luxury Vantage, it will appear to be a bargain.
Thank goodness it is better value than powerboat racing.
Apparently, to get an idea of what that sport is like, just stand in the shower for half an hour, tearing up £50 notes. -
Expect you have heard the old one, about the two happiest days. When you buy it and when you sell it.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff