It posts some very good numbers...

0-60 4.1
1/4 mi 12.5 @ 115
Skidpad 0.97

And that was just on the first run. The said they definitely felt it could go faster, suggesting it would have hit 60 in under 4 seconds, given the chance. But...the 6-speed transmission broke on the first run. They were given an automatic to replace it, but couldn't duplicate the numbers.

It all makes me wonder why the test numbers for the previous 4.3L were so bad...they give comparison numbers of 5.3 and 13.6 @ 105.8. Hard to believe there's THAT much difference.

Best line:

"There's no denying the Vantage's rarity and beauty (lined up with the 911, it looks like a leopard next to an ostrich egg)."

 

Before the Vantage had been even referred to as the Aston S4000...ouch. But wow I have not seen a car transformed so much by an engine!

 

The 4.3 is not really as peaky as it has been described. When Steve Millen drove it in another review, he said that the power was all in the mid range and that it runs out of breath at the upper revs, which is the opposite of the S4000 comment. I don't think that's completely true either. The mid-range torque is good if you hit it in the right rev range. Below 2000 it's very flat, but that's probably a throttle-mapping thing. And up top it really pulls hard.

I've driven the 4.7 and it's faster, but it's not that much faster. Either that car was unusually fast or some of the 4.3's tested were unusually slow. I favor the second option, as my car definitely feels like a car that could match the original test numbers of 13.1 @ 108.

 

i'd love to pick one of those up.

the new shopping list continues...

 

My issue was always why would they choose this car to go against the 911 and it make it slower by quite a bit. Now with the 4.7 if those numbers are repeatable we have a car that is definitely faster than a 911 base or S.

 

you know? i've never compared the vantage to anything else, because the looks put it in a league of its own. as long as they are sportscar-ish performers, they are always a possibility on my list.

 

I have always held the Vanquish as one of my favorite cars, the Vantage is very nice...but hmm choices .,..choices

 

when is the 4.7 going to make into the XK and XF?

 

i don't think they will since jag has split off again...

 

the new 09 997 S PDK is actually faster. 3.9 0-60.
[media]http://videos.streetfire.net/video/GTR-vs-911-PDK-vs-R8-vs_190012.htm[/media]
But the AM V8 is one of the best looking cars on the planet..

 

I'm a company guy but these numbers would make the 4.7 faster than the DBS, the Vantage V12 and the spercharged V8. I have felt that my car is a bit faster that the numbers with the new exhaust but it's hard to believe that 40 more HP brings the 0-60 time down by nearly a second. I would think that it woukd be closer to 4.6 than 4.1. By the way, if the new porsche C2S with the PDK does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds doesn't that bring it close to the turbo with almost 100 more HP. These numbers just don't add up.

 

The turbo is running 3.4-3.7 times currently. Thats with the manual & AWD. The new PDK with launch control is just that good. Thats why the 09 C2S is running those times. The best anyone has been getting with the manual is 4.3 ish. When they finally get the PDK in the turbo watchout.

 

Sorry old drag racer here, what is the trap speed on that run? 997 S's have run quicker than this car but not faster.

 

Why 0-60 times are useless for comparing cars, also the 4.7 has a much more useable powerband than the 4.3 so its not just the peak hp differences but the powerband differences.

 

Never they are both getting a 5.0 DI engine 385 hp N/A and 510 hp S/C