Yes you could. And some well driven 350 hp cars would leave some 700 hp+ supercars for dead on some roads. I guess everyone finds their comfort level and satisfaction at a certain power output. But IMO the trouble with really powerful cars on the street is that they can be quite frustrating, too much of an exercise in restraint as they can never really be opened up.

As for the 90's Astons such as the V600, very powerful, for sure. No doubt at the time there were plenty of criticisms and comments that the cars were heavy and poorly suited for corners, compared to say, a slightly less powerful Ferrari or Porsche. My point is that Aston has always been the underdog, compared to more 'mainstream' or recognized marques, in some way or another; viewed as never quite as good a driver's car.

 

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with this notion of Aston taking the attitude of "well, we never really competed that well anyway so let's not bother trying." First, I don't think it's true (Ferraris and Porsches are more sports cars than Aston's GT cars and we're talking about bhp, not track performance) and it sounds defeatist to me. Sure, there is much about Astons other than performance and statistics that drew us to them, but I don't think Aston should rest on its style laurels too much.

 

Don't believe that BS for one minute. Grossly exaggerated HP claims as compared with the standardized measurement of HP today. And there is no way on earth that big lump of a car could break 200 mph...you (and they) are dreamin'.

When a lightweight, aerodynamic Z06 can't hit 200 mph with 505 real hp, then what chance does a heavy, lumpy Vantage have? None (except in factory marketing hype).

 

I seem to vaguely recall Vicky trying unsuccessfully to get to 200mph in a Vanquish on 5th Gear several years ago. Or was that another car?

 

I agree. I do think that this 700hp+ stuff is truly pointless. Why does Ferrari need to increase the engine displacement of the F12 over the already crazy-fast 599, never mind adding 110 hp??? The awesome Daytona had merely 4.4 liters. Clearly they can increase power without further increasing displacement. I'd be much more impressed if they reduced displacement, kept hp about the same, and took some more weight out of the car.

I continue to think that the new "310" does not need to be in that 700 hp range at all. I understand that this is the game that is being played, but someone should be brave enough to stop the craziness. If there is a significant price gap between the 310 and the F12 -- as there is between the DBS and the 599 -- 700 hp or thereabouts is not necessary to "compete."

However... While I firmly believe there is much more to Aston than just the numbers, performance is very important. I think the notion that Astons never were competitive from the performance or "driver's car" perpsectives is just not true. Many magazines have preferred the DBS to the 599 as an overall experience even though the DBS is not as fast -- it's still very fast, and the car offers a great drive, just not one as hardcore as the 599. Moreover, the 4.7 V8V offers performance right on par with the 997S and the R8. Only now that the 991 has come out is the 911 faster than a V8V by any real margin, and even then, looking at 1/4 mile speeds, the difference isn't as large as has been suggested. Yes, a 991 is extremely fast around the 'Ring, but it also seems to have lost the tactility and involvement that used to make 911s great to drive at less than massive speeds.

Aston should not try to make a better Ferrari or a better Porsche -- Aston should make great Aston Martins.

 

True the old Vantage was "heavy and lumpy" but the extra weight shouldn't have that much to do with top speed given enough space, right? Yes the car was not exceedingly aerodynamic, but the top Vantage had 600 bhp, if you believe the numbers (which I understand that you don't).

Regardless, my point was that Aston was once at or near the top in terms of power and top speed for production cars. I think this new idea that power and performance aren't important because it's an Aston is BS. It sounds like an excuse after the fact. Again, I don't think the DBS replacement needs over 700 bhp, but as Aston's flagship, it should have an impressive number that is befitting of a car in that role.

 

Aston's "flagship" already has over 700bhp.

 

Excellent point !

 

Ha, yes, good point. I'll go with "top of the range" car instead, wherein the "range" includes the "normal" cars that are not so rare as to be available only to multi-millionaires. Hmm, "flagship" is so much easier to say.

 

Yes indeed. But she ran out of runway before she could find out if the beast lived up to the billing.

 

Three letters = A,W,D.

 

Ferrari MUST increase overall performance if they wish to maintain an image that Koenigsegg, Pagani, and Bugatti have just taken from them - being the premier car manufacturer in the world. When discussing 0-60 (or useable power for the average drivers), Ferrari has been pretty much excluded from the discussion. When discussing top speeds, track speeds, or just about anything else, Ferrari has been omitted from many discussions. They've almost become irrelevant.

Astons are some of the nicest cars this world has ever seen. And they will continue to sell based on their decent performance, hand-crafted quality, attention to detail, and historically good looks. BUT - I know I want Aston to be back at the forefront of the discussion, making them relevant again. Don't rest with the One-77 being the most powerful N/A engine ever. Use that R&D, possibly a slightly scaled back version, put it in a new chassis, and call it day. Like stated above, we don't 'need' 700bhp, but it is sure nice to have it, and have it being useable. I think that is the trick.

 

Amen brother!!!

I'll add that it's sometimes nice to have gobs of power on the road even if you can't put all of it down from a dead stop. Today, for example, I was in the right lane on an access road in my M5 (another car with "too much" power). Some guy on my left started to accelerate, clearly intending to pass me and take a quick right turn, essentially cutting me off in the process and making me brake when I didn't want/need to. All I had to do was punch the accelerator and he was in the rear view. Lot's of power is a good thing!

Also, I'm sure I'm not alone in actually liking the tires to slip a bit or the back end to step out a bit from time to time. On the road, I'm not driving to achieve a low split time or win a race. I'm driving to have fun. A little hooning every now and then is fun. If my car couldn't break traction when I wanted it to I would be disappointed!

 

Don't for a second think that I don't like fast cars -- I certainly do. Racer -- your story involves a car that has a hp figure that starts with "merely" a 5. Last weekend I had a very similar experience -- and did much the same thing -- with a paltry 420 hp. You don't need 700 to have huge fun! At that point it's all about bragging rights.

Jasper, my point isn't about needing AWD to put the power down. My point is that if you do put 700 hp down, within a very few seconds you're going far too fast for the road. In my experience, many of the "outrageously" fast (as opposed to just very fast) cars are less fun at streetable speeds (including high streetable speeds) than cars that are just "very" fast. The outrageously fast ones often don't come alive until the speeds are extremely high, whereas the merely very fast cars are still tactile and involving at semi-sane speeds. It's a variation on the old "it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car slow" theory. Except I'm not talking about slow cars -- only degrees of fast cars. As you said, Racer, I'm not driving on the road for a split time -- it's for fun. I prefer rear-drive to AWD for that -- I love the Vantage's balance and it's throttle-adjustable handling (as I love my (RWD) '95 993's 911-ness). Again, there is no need for 700 hp to have huge fun.

Jasper, in the many car-related conversations I have, Ferrari most certainly is spoken of with Pagani, Bugatti and Koenigsegg. 458s and F12s aren't in that performance league, but neither are they a million dollars. Or two million, for that matter. The next "Enzo" will be comparable both in performance terms and in price.

Come to think of it, Jasper, maybe AWD is actually the problem here -- until you have 700 hp in a GTR the thing just grips too much -- and that's no fun

 

Aston's problem is weight, not power. To me, all their cars beyond the Vantage just feel enormous and heavy (even if they are not, especially since the Vantage also needs to lose weight).

A lighter Aston with 500 hp and a KERS unit for short bursts of go, is more than enough for a street car. It would feel more fun too. Put the DBS on a diet, not steroids.

My TTRS does a 0-60 in 4.1 sec, consistently. It's an amazing engine and it is a ton of fun. But it's not in anyway the same experience as my Vantage. That's the point isn't it??? Tiff said as much reviewing the V12V. His point was the F430 was faster in every way, but not as much fun to drive.

Going fast is cheap and easy these days. Think about the performance I get from my little 2.5 liter 5 cylinder TTRS. Five years ago that was super car territory. A marque brand has to make THE REASON for buying be beyond just numbers. Aston does a great job at that.

I'm all for making cars that are FUN to drive. Cars that reward the driver, not just the stop watch. I had a Boxster S for a while and it was a joy to drive at any speed. My Vantage is the same way. It fills the car with the most amazing noise, everything feels great to the touch and there are enough idiosyncrasies to let me know it has character that wasn't "focus group approved"..

Honestly, when I drive the sub four second cars on the street, it's like wishing premature ejaculation on yourself. Just when it was all getting interesting, it's all over. No more revs, no more shifting, just 70 miles an hour.