I have my own volume of test data. My conclusions are that the V12 is by far the fastest AM I have driven. I don't need miracle runs that can't be repeated to tell me that. The 4.7 that did 0-60 in 4.1 seconds "broke" right after and the other car supplied by AM couldn't repeat that feat. There is definitely a limitation with this car due to traction. I think that the same issue is experienced with the SC cars. I have driven it on a track and been a passenger with a professional who was smoking F cars and Porsches with me in it. It is not a technology rich car like the other exotics out there but that is part of the draw for me. As far as other conversations in this thread about the company sandbagging performance, we all know that most manufacturers are conservative in their set ups. Some how Porsche has managed to get 500 HP out of a NA 6 cylinder that used to yield 315. Keep in mind, the same V12 in the DBR9 is over 600 HP with out forced induction and heavy mods. I think that it all gets down to repeatability and reliability from the factory. It's expensive for a small company to reengineer. So it would make sense to see a vision for a car that could accommodate a progressive advancement in HP to keep the buyers coming. AM has lived on style and looks as it's greatest appeal. Let's face it, if it didn't matter, we'd all be driving used 911 TT's with modest mods at 580HP or ZR1's.

 

"Miracle runs." That's a good term for it.

 

Spot on!

 

With the greatest possible respect, I think you might be 'framing' this discussion in the wrong way (to borrow a term from Chomsky.) I think everyone would agree the V8, particularly the 4.3 does not make the power it could, or should. But when you say 'detuned' I think it conjures up images of AM building a 550HP monster and then gleefully rubbing their hands together as they choked the performance out of it.

As Mike has described in great detail and as I have been saying for a couple of years when our customers asked about performance mods - AM is not a huge company and they don't have the ability to amortize R&D costs across multiple platforms, or to spread these through huge sales figures. The lack of performance from the engine is really due to (as Mike has said) constraints placed upon the engineers due primarily to finances (perhaps FI notwithstanding.)

Does the cynic in me see the N400/Power Pack, 4.7, N420, Vantage S as slightly dubious? Yes, but AM is not alone in their department and I think that the decisions to release these were made along the way and probably as reactionary measures rather than the result of an evil master plan.

 

This is exactly what I'm getting at. I also have a camera problem, and I'm continuously reading about how Canon could "oh so easily" produce a 1 zillion megapixel camera that can shoot in pitch black without a tripod. More of my naivete, but no, I don't think they can. Neither camera manufacturers nor automakers can produce the ultimate device the first (or second, or 40th) time out. That's why they have R&D: they're not done improving things yet. Very likely they can produce something that outperforms what the standard models offer, but at greater cost and lower reliability; certainly without as much testing.

In any case, I don't work for Aston or Canon, so all I can do is conjecture, which doesn't seem like a great use of time to me, particularly when a man who did work for the relevant company is somewhere around here.

 

We'll probably never truly know the answer to this, although I appreciate Mike's insight into the development process.

I don't think it's a detuned 550 hp monster...450 should have been easily achievable with the 4.3, though. People always talk about how expensive engine development is, but the reality is that it's not rocket science. If it was, you wouldn't see some of these small aftermarket companies being able to make such dramatic changes to an engine. Yes, there's a cost limitation and reliability concern with some things. But others are relatively easy. For example, the low-end power might have been solved with different cams and improved gas transfer as Mike mentioned. The American V8s that they modeled they engine after are known for...low-end power. Granted, they are larger displacement engines, but they have a wider powerband regardless of displacement.

It's a lot different from cameras where in most cases the technology needs to be invented to allow for a higher megapixel camera...in this case everyone knows how to do it and the parts are available (or can easily be made), so it becomes more likely an intentional effort to limit the output.

 

Completely agree about not turning this into a tit-for-tat or anything else, either (which is next to impossible when someone has a dissenting view on the interwebs, sadly), but I do have to respectfully disagree on this.

If car manufacturers could easily and cheaply produce 1000 horsepower cars that get 100 mpg, they would. The alternative just doesn't make any sense. Why invest all this money into producing lower power than what you can already do cheaply and easily? New technology in engine and other component building is exactly why the Civic beat the Jag and the Aston (if I remember the cars correctly) in that Top Gear episode (look for it if you haven't seen it... it'll break your heart).

I'm not suggesting that there aren't simple (and not so simple) things that can be done to improve things, nor that they aren't relatively well known (I've modded my BMWs in the past and am interested in getting this tune done as well... once I know more than what happens in the first 100 miles after it's done). I'm just talking about motivations. So maybe I should shut the hell up and start talking about cars again.

Maybe I should get my Vendor Defender superhero outfit, but I just think people are often way too quick to say "they're intentionally producing an inferior product, all that R&D money be damned."

As you were. More dynos, please and thank you (sincerely on the thank you bit). And somebody pull Mike out of the pub long enough to chime in.

 

Hey no offense taken...it's all for good discussion.

So the extreme 1000 hp, 100 mpg hypothetical car aside, why would they limit output? The answer is $$. If the product is otherwise so good that they know you'll keep coming back, why sell you a 600 hp car today when they could sell you a 380 hp car now, a 420 hp car next year, a 430 hp next new best thing the following year, etc until they get you to buy 5 new cars instead of one.

This is true to a lesser extent with technology like phones where it advances quickly and you have to upgrade to keep up. The difference is that frequently high-technology only allows things to advance at a certain pace while the technology is invented. Engine tech is not exactly on the cutting edge here...the technology has been invented, it just needs to be applied to the engine...none of the cars have direct injection, for example...AM can't fit it to their production cars but they have it on their one-off track cars. Still think they couldn't do it if they wanted to? Things like forged pistons/con rods, titanium valve springs, higher compression, etc...all are selectively not chosen due to cost-related and intentional limitations. You can get an aftermarket rebuild of your engine bored out to 4.7 or 5.0 L with forged rods and crank, ported and polished heads, etc, etc and this can be done by a relatively small shop with limited resources, yet AM can only get 430hp max out of a 4.7 L V8...still think AM couldn't do it if they wanted to?

 

Hiya 007 Vantage. You mentioned in your write-up that you were now having some traction issues since changing the rear rotors. Do you know if the AM Sport Pack reduces weight by a similar amount? If so, how do they overcome the traction issue?

 

[QUOTE=Tahoe M3;3203705]We'll probably never truly know the answer to this, although I appreciate Mike's insight into the development process.

People always talk about how expensive engine development is, but the reality is that it's not rocket science. If it was, you wouldn't see some of these small aftermarket companies being able to make such dramatic changes to an engine. Yes, there's a cost limitation and reliability concern with some things. But others are relatively easy.


My point about the cost to engineer is a testament that manufacturers knowingly suppress the performance so that they can cheaply issue a faster version year after year. In some cases, I believe that they have the next advancements lined up before the first model even comes out. The after market tuners don't have any constraints so they can go right to it. After all they have to strike when the iron is hot. The manufacturers have to live up to projections so they need room. It's not to say that it's to expensive, it's just that they need to get as many years out of a model as the can. It's the total re-do that is cost prohibitive.

 

Excellent: that's the spirit intended. In that case...

Yeah, I just don't know about that. That's exactly what Apple does, and why they've gotten me to buy so many iPhones. The big difference is, I (and so many others) am able to afford buying The Next Great iThing™ every 18 months. Maybe when my Google idea takes off I can afford to upgrade my Aston every year, but I'm guessing most buyers of these premium cars (any cars, for that matter) don't upgrade every year, certainly not for marginal improvements in horsepower. They take their money to other-than-OEM tuners, creating something more appealing to themselves than the new model. The business side of it makes much more sense to me to produce the best you can (within your constraints for safety and reliability and all the lawyer stuff) and beat the other guys, not endure the comments about "oh, they really should've done X, it's so easy to do," and cause potential buyers/upgraders to wait yet another year until the manufacturer has finally made it good enough.

Without having done a single Google search for Mercedes' purchase of AMG (so more of the pure conjecture), I'd guess that was part of what they had in mind. Plus they get the tuner money as well.

Right. Very different cost point/reliability requirement.

Not at all, and I've misrepresented myself if I gave that impression. I imagine they could (within reason), but not without more investment and more testing. Scale, unfortunately, matters, which is why small, agile teams can get more done than larger groups. The requirements are different, as are the testing standards and timelines. Would one of their one-off track cars be able to handle that engine endurance test Mike described? Need to find that again, it was impressive. For that matter, could a current 4.3l Ferrari engine survive that?

I just don't buy the nefarious intent angle. Tuners should follow the same model if that were the case. While they do tend to offer stage one through whatever, they seem to do that as quickly as they can, from what I've seen, and by so doing they admit that they have various levels of tune that are available (at diminishing returns cost-wise). I doubt that Stuart has some flux-capacitor driven cats that he's holding back for release next year because he wants to sell as many of his current stock as he can first, then get upgrades later. If you do, Stuart, sorry for spoiling the surprise.

 

Hi...

I am reading, with interest, you guys are having a very interesting discussion here and there are far too many discussions / topics to pick up on in one go.

There is / was a reason for everything done by AM - from 'sand-bagging' the performance - which was never the case, or the reasons for the rich A/F ratio being discussed.
There are sometimes when I can not easily join in on a discussion and I have to read without posting anything. This is because my comments often stop a discussion dead through the truth / facts and often makes me Mr unpopular and I come under fire from different angles...

ECU tuning without other mechanical upgrades is a good example;

AMV8 performance is achieved at peak power by running a certain variable inlet cam position, airflow, spark timing and fuelling value.

Inlet variable cam position - manufacturer set cams to optimum in the standard maps.
Airflow - the throttle is set wide open by manufacturer at full driver pedal demand.
Spark - The knock control sensors deliver optimum spark at all times.
Fuelling -The maximum performance fuelling for most engines is 13.0:1 AFR (0.89 lambda) and represents the 'plateau' of torque output. Richer (more fuel) than this (a figure less than 13.0:1 / 0.89Lambda) will detract performance, leaner (less fuel) than 13.0:1 and up to 14.6:1 AFR / Stoich (0.89 up to lambda 1.00), will also loose performance. The lambda value of the AMV8 Vantage at peak power speed is circa. 11.0:1 AFR (0.79 Lambda). This is because additional fuel (more / richer) is required to quench / reduce exhaust port (for valve head limits) and catalyst temperatures to their maximum permissible, via more fuel resulting in a cooler exhaust gas temperature. So, if fuelling is taken out performance will increase by approx. 5BHP per 0.05 Lambda. Therefore, taking 0.1 lambda out to return 13.0:1 AFR / 0.89 Lambda will result in an increase of circa 10BHP. But, if fuel is taken out, this will over-temp the ports and catalysts (from the hotter exhaust gas temperature due to the leaner mixture), with disastrous consequences (broken cat, burnt-out exhaust valve seats - expensive repair bill).
So, you are correct to question whether it is a good thing to get to the optimum air-fuel-ratio..! It most certainly is not....

And based on this information, if somebody could please tell me how an ECU re-tune delivers more power (other than reckless fuel control) I would feel..... enlightened ...!!!????

By discussing these facts I will no doubt come under attack from those who have an interest in ECU re-flashes..... Although i'm never one to shy away from a technical discussion around the facts without any BS.. this is often the reason why I don't jump in on certain discussions....

Mike.

 

Your comments here form a good analysis, and yes, the projects which came were often reactionary / came along the way with reasons - but i agree, it could look dubious (4.3 > power pack > 4.7 > 4.7 power pack-Vantage 'S'). I have no real reason to defend AM but there was never a grand-master plan where performance was sand-bagged so that as time went by additional performance could be charged for.
I will write a model-by-model progression to show why / how this is true with some insider comments.

I will

 

I think your comment here together with the words of a few other 'posters' really gets to the truth of the matter....

The factory knows they sell on looks, image and brand ID - perhaps with the most thrilling exhaust note the legislators will allow too....

So that's where the development budget went - styling / interior (well sort of), suspension, braking and last on the list was always engines.

There 'were' a number of great engine design and development staff committed to delivering engines with the best specific torque and power output, the best emissions and fuel economy figures whilst being the most durable and reliable at the same time. Are these people there now - no. why? fed up with being last on the list for budget to achieve greatness and being led by management team with no ingenuity or passion to get that magical end result even without the finance (the ability to turn a silk purse out of a sow's ear is a much desired quality in an engineers toolkit these days...)

But there is no need for sadness.....A conversation I had recently with an informed gentleman said "we have the best looking cars, we just need to make them go faster", and there are people on here who offer those services, its just up to the owner / driver to figure out the route to modification that best suits their needs to get the fastest, best looking car with image and brand ID that only the AM wings deliver...

 

I think most dynos have shown the AFR to be well around 9:1 at peak power, not 11:1.