Absolutely ZERO, just a very happy customer. He keeps blowing away my expectations on all the tunes he does for my cars. It's nice to have a local tuner that can work wonders on your exact setup, so it would be a shame for me to not take advantage of that. He has tuned 3 of my cars already and will probably tune my cars till kingdom come lol.


CRET - of course, all their tunes are available through their remote programmer, which certainly makes the tuning process alot easier and more convenient.

 

007-Sorry for taking the conversation WAY off topic. I wish I was closer to Houston as I would love to see what EC could do to cars that had mods done to them...I am just concerned that the tune is best for stock cars.

Jay great write up. I was thinking traction had a lot to do with it. You can see in the tests the V12 really pulls away at 0-100. I hope to be as fortunate one day to upgrade.

 

He can tune your car remotely while it's directly on the dyno, it does not matter what your setup is, it can be done. It's better to be in person but it's not mandatory. As LNG as you have a wi-fi connection they can do everything for you, you don't even have to move a mouse, pretty impressive technology

 

So I say that there's a big difference between the V12V and the V8S and I'm wrong, but Jay says it and he's right. I guess sometimes it's not what is said but who says it.

 

I’ll start by saying that the V12V feels a lot faster than a 4.7L V8V. But the test numbers show a performance gap that is considerably smaller than what that difference feels like. Why simply ignore C&D test figures but believe AM’s quotes? AM is selling cars – and therefore has a motive – so wants to show that there is a real performance difference between cars that carry very different price tags. C&D and the other mags have no reason to artificially alter their test results from one car to another within a given manufacturer’s offerings. As I understand it, C&D does both standing start and rolling start acceleration tests. Regardless, as long as it uses the same procedures from one car to another, the results should shed some light on the performance of those cars. Regardless, other magazines’ test figures – and I’ve read every English-language article I can find on the V8V and the V12V since the Vantage line was introduced (ask my wife – she’ll tell you how many magazines are taking up space in my house) – tell a similar tale. The actual figures aren’t as different as people might expect.

The magazine tests show that, up to around 120 mph, the acceleration of a 4.7L V8V is closer to that of a V12V than to a 4.3L V8V. The 0-60 figures for the V12 are pretty consistent at around 4.1. The 4.7L V8V does it in 4.3 seconds pretty consistently (although MotorTrend got 4.1 – make of that what you will). The 4.3L V8V had results from 4.7 seconds (R&T) to 5.1 (C&D). Either way, the 4.7L is closer to the V12V than to the 4.3L.

0-60 times are surely influenced by traction limitations, so perhaps traction is a big factor in the smallish performance gap to 60. By 100 mph, traction should be less of an issue (an issue still, but less significant). The V12 tests show 0-100 in about 9 seconds flat, and I’ve seen 9.1 more than once. The 4.7 tests usually show just over 10 seconds – several in the 10.1-10.3 range (MotorTrend quotes just under 10). The 4.3 recorded 0-100 in a bit under 12 (best of 11.4 from R&T, but 12.3 from C&D). Again, the 4.7L V8V is closer to the V12V than to the 4.3L.

Finally, ¼ mile speeds, which should be least impacted by traction issues and should best show the V12V’s power advantage. The 4.3 V8V, in the tests I have, runs between 106 and 108 mph through the ¼ mile. The 4.7L V8V runs 113 in most tests (MotorTrend shows 115.) The V12V tests I’ve seen show 117. Since the DBS has the same driveline as the V12V, and only weighs about 35 lbs more, it should post similar acceleration figures to the V12V, and it does: 0-60 in 4.2-4.3, 0-100 in 9.1, ¼ mile speeds 117-118 (C&D, R&T and MT). By the way, the V8S has posted numbers very similar to the non-S 4.7 in these tests, which makes sense given that there is just 10 hp between them. Even given the slightly lighter gearbox, 10 hp is a very small difference when you start with 420.

It’s also worth mentioning that a DBS owner from Germany who was a prolific poster on another forum wrote about his experience with a friend’s 4.7. They went out to play on the Autobahn and, much to his surprise, his friend’s 4.7 ran his DBS very closely – he was amazed at how quick the V8V was running side by side.

Again, however flawed the test techniques may or may not be, if the techniques are the same in the various tests, those flaws are largely mitigated for comparison purposes. To be honest, as an owner of a 4.7 V8V, the smallish recorded differences between the 4.7 and the V12V surprise me. Even though the 4.7 is very quick, having driven the V12V, it feels like a complete beast in a way that the 4.7 V8V does not. I have no doubt that as speeds continue to increase over 120 the gap will grow increasingly wider and better reflect the way it feels, which I think is in large part due to the V12's huge torque – it’s just massive. The V12’s throttle response is also much better. But the 4.7 is closer to the V12V in absolute numbers than it would seem, at least until really big speeds. They’re both wonderful cars.

 

I guess this thread has morphed into a V12V vs. V8V debate.

I don't want to belabor my point so I'll just make two more brief comments. First, from the numbers I've seen posted by C&D in the past, I have no faith in any of their data. Some of their numbers are just so far beyond what others report, I don't trust any of it. Second, as is often stated, a car is not the sum of its statistics. The difference between the V12V and V8V is enormous. Test drive one if you don't believe me. If you have test driven one and still feel like they are nearly the same, you're doing it wrong.

 

I'm not sure I understand how to read the data, for me v12 is more of the same but so much more, yes it's much harder work but it's part of the fun, no ??

 

Supercharge it, I've seen supercharged Vantages (new ones) and they're beasts so why go to the trouble of a high HP NA when you can make more reliable and more power from an SC.

 

Haha, nothing like that! I believe that speedraser above said it best about the V12V feeling like such a monster. I agree fully having been lucky to at least have taken one for a 30 min test drive, so I know what you mean. I have never driven the S, but on paper, just paper, they are kinda similar in performance. The V12 really begins to pull away at speed. I was suprised when I saw some of the tests. Really though its all about how the car makes you feel, right? The V12V felt alot more special than my V8 any numbers be damned......if we cared only about numbers we would all be driving GTR's!

 

I agree completely. Astons are so much more than numbers -- they feel truly special. The V8V feels beautifully balanced. The V12V doesn't -- in a GOOD way

 

Absolutely. In the end, it's about driver experience and I think we call all agree that each Aston provides that in spades.