Aston Martin to use Toyota Engines?
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 22
From: Toronto, Canada
Rep Power: 0
Not me. Too much Japanese technology (Nissan-based engine). I mean, the same people that designed the Nissan Sentra laid the footprint for the MP4-12C.
No soul or character. Too many computers, nannies, turbos, dual clutch gearbox..., etc...
I'd rather drive a car with character, than be driven in a computer controlled technological wonder. How boring is that?
Who would want to spend $$$ on a car with a pedestrian, every-has-one, Nissan engine?
(see how easy that was? It is easy to have prejudice. It takes experience, or an open mind, to see past it)
No soul or character. Too many computers, nannies, turbos, dual clutch gearbox..., etc...
I'd rather drive a car with character, than be driven in a computer controlled technological wonder. How boring is that?
Who would want to spend $$$ on a car with a pedestrian, every-has-one, Nissan engine?
(see how easy that was? It is easy to have prejudice. It takes experience, or an open mind, to see past it)
One could readily argue that the GT-R fits the bill you described above. Unless there is some sarcasm intended in your post that I'm clearing missing?
Back to the original topic, I do wonder how much cross-pollination occurs in the automotive industry? Ulrich Bez was part of Porsche prior to taking the helm at Aston-Martin; I wonder what concepts he brought across with him?
As I said before, just as a great engine is not enough to give a car soul, the inverse is also true. A car may not have soul if it doesn't have a great engine in it.
Patrick
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,219
From: Fayetteville
Rep Power: 499
Your first post:
You prejudged a car, even though it is highly unlikely it would have EVER come to fruition, based on the origin of the shared technology, before it was ever introduced as a concept (removing your knowledge or experience about such a car that has never existed).
Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge or experience.
Your position was quite clear. This is my issue with your apparent perspective. Now, if you have first-hand knowledge, please share.
Otherwise, did you also say before the McLaren MP4-12C came out that they should not base their engine off of the Nissan VRH? Did you say that Nissan engines belong in Nissans, and not McLarens? That McLarens are emotional, and Nissans are not? That Nissans don't and won't have character? etc...
Because if you didn't, wouldn't that seem awkward, being as you're saying these things about Aston and Toyota?
I will not buy an Aston Martin with a Toyota engine -- I simply would have zero desire to own such a car.
Toyota makes great Toyotas. They do not make Aston Martins, even though Bez thinks the iQ is an Aston. It isn't.
A Toyota engine, no matter how good it may be (even the LFA's) does not belong in an Aston. Astons have character. Astons are emotional. Toyotas don't and aren't.
Toyota makes great Toyotas. They do not make Aston Martins, even though Bez thinks the iQ is an Aston. It isn't.
A Toyota engine, no matter how good it may be (even the LFA's) does not belong in an Aston. Astons have character. Astons are emotional. Toyotas don't and aren't.
Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge or experience.
Your position was quite clear. This is my issue with your apparent perspective. Now, if you have first-hand knowledge, please share.
Otherwise, did you also say before the McLaren MP4-12C came out that they should not base their engine off of the Nissan VRH? Did you say that Nissan engines belong in Nissans, and not McLarens? That McLarens are emotional, and Nissans are not? That Nissans don't and won't have character? etc...
Because if you didn't, wouldn't that seem awkward, being as you're saying these things about Aston and Toyota?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 926
From: NY
Rep Power: 74
Your first post:
You prejudged a car, even though it is highly unlikely it would have EVER come to fruition, based on the origin of the shared technology, before it was ever introduced as a concept (removing your knowledge or experience about such a car that has never existed).
Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge or experience.
Your position was quite clear. This is my issue with your apparent perspective. Now, if you have first-hand knowledge, please share.
Otherwise, did you also say before the McLaren MP4-12C came out that they should not base their engine off of the Nissan VRH? Did you say that Nissan engines belong in Nissans, and not McLarens? That McLarens are emotional, and Nissans are not? That Nissans don't and won't have character? etc...
Because if you didn't, wouldn't that seem awkward, being as you're saying these things about Aston and Toyota?
You prejudged a car, even though it is highly unlikely it would have EVER come to fruition, based on the origin of the shared technology, before it was ever introduced as a concept (removing your knowledge or experience about such a car that has never existed).
Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge or experience.
Your position was quite clear. This is my issue with your apparent perspective. Now, if you have first-hand knowledge, please share.
Otherwise, did you also say before the McLaren MP4-12C came out that they should not base their engine off of the Nissan VRH? Did you say that Nissan engines belong in Nissans, and not McLarens? That McLarens are emotional, and Nissans are not? That Nissans don't and won't have character? etc...
Because if you didn't, wouldn't that seem awkward, being as you're saying these things about Aston and Toyota?
That's how you conclude that I’m “prejudiced”?
And what I have said is “awkward” because of what I have not said about McLaren and Nissan (since I haven't said anything about McLaren-Nissan). You have an “issue” with my “apparent perspective.” Well, you don’t have a clue as to what my actual perspective is. I did not say that an Aston with a Toyota engine would be a bad car. I said I would not have any interest in such a car, or have any desire to own one. Yes, I actually know this even though such a car does not currently exist (hopefully). I have “knowledge” and “experience” of both Aston Martin and Toyota, and I would not be interested in some combination of the two.
If you learned that the next GT-R was going to be the same in every way as the current one except that it was going to be powered by the Leaf’s motor and only come with a manual gearbox, would you know whether you wanted one before it was actually on the market? Would you really have to wait until it went on sale to decide?
About McLaren and Nissan: 1) McLaren has never made its own engines for its road cars. Aston has been making its own engines for, oh, somewhere around a century. Some of these were “derived” from other engines, not least the engine in the DB2 series. 2) The MP4-12C engine was designed in collaboration with Ricardo, and is “based” on a 1998 LeMans Nissan engine. As I understand it, about the only thing the Nissan and McLaren engines share is the size of the cylinder bore.
That doesn’t make the MP4-12C engine a “Nissan engine” to me. Just like, as I’ve said many times, the current Aston V8 is not a “Jaguar engine,” IMO, since it shares nothing with the Jaguar engine it’s “based” on. As I have also said before (in this thread IIRC), if Aston started with a Toyota engine and so comprehensively redeveloped it that the end result shared nothing with what it was based on, then that might be something I’d be interested in. I’ve said the same thing about Aston using a Benz engine.
FWIW, Nissans, IMO, generally have more character than Toyotas. Many of the Z-cars have character and, maybe, even the GT-R does.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,219
From: Fayetteville
Rep Power: 499
Seriously That's how you conclude that I’m “prejudiced”? And what I have said is “awkward” because of what I have not said about McLaren and Nissan (since I haven't said anything about McLaren-Nissan). You have an “issue” with my “apparent perspective.”
Well, you don’t have a clue as to what my actual perspective is. I did not say that an Aston with a Toyota engine would be a bad car. I said I would not have any interest in such a car, or have any desire to own one. Yes, I actually know this even though such a car does not currently exist (hopefully). I have “knowledge” and “experience” of both Aston Martin and Toyota, and I would not be interested in some combination of the two.
If you learned that the next GT-R was going to be the same in every way as the current one except that it was going to be powered by the Leaf’s motor and only come with a manual gearbox, would you know whether you wanted one before it was actually on the market? Would you really have to wait until it went on sale to decide?
About McLaren and Nissan: 1) McLaren has never made its own engines for its road cars. Aston has been making its own engines for, oh, somewhere around a century. Some of these were “derived” from other engines, not least the engine in the DB2 series. 2) The MP4-12C engine was designed in collaboration with Ricardo, and is “based” on a 1998 LeMans Nissan engine. As I understand it, about the only thing the Nissan and McLaren engines share is the size of the cylinder bore.
That doesn’t make the MP4-12C engine a “Nissan engine” to me. Just like, as I’ve said many times, the current Aston V8 is not a “Jaguar engine,” IMO, since it shares nothing with the Jaguar engine it’s “based” on. As I have also said before (in this thread IIRC), if Aston started with a Toyota engine and so comprehensively redeveloped it that the end result shared nothing with what it was based on, then that might be something I’d be interested in. I’ve said the same thing about Aston using a Benz engine.
FWIW, Nissans, IMO, generally have more character than Toyotas. Many of the Z-cars have character and, maybe, even the GT-R does.
That's how you conclude that I’m “prejudiced”? And what I have said is “awkward” because of what I have not said about McLaren and Nissan (since I haven't said anything about McLaren-Nissan). You have an “issue” with my “apparent perspective.” Well, you don’t have a clue as to what my actual perspective is. I did not say that an Aston with a Toyota engine would be a bad car. I said I would not have any interest in such a car, or have any desire to own one. Yes, I actually know this even though such a car does not currently exist (hopefully). I have “knowledge” and “experience” of both Aston Martin and Toyota, and I would not be interested in some combination of the two.
If you learned that the next GT-R was going to be the same in every way as the current one except that it was going to be powered by the Leaf’s motor and only come with a manual gearbox, would you know whether you wanted one before it was actually on the market? Would you really have to wait until it went on sale to decide?
About McLaren and Nissan: 1) McLaren has never made its own engines for its road cars. Aston has been making its own engines for, oh, somewhere around a century. Some of these were “derived” from other engines, not least the engine in the DB2 series. 2) The MP4-12C engine was designed in collaboration with Ricardo, and is “based” on a 1998 LeMans Nissan engine. As I understand it, about the only thing the Nissan and McLaren engines share is the size of the cylinder bore.
That doesn’t make the MP4-12C engine a “Nissan engine” to me. Just like, as I’ve said many times, the current Aston V8 is not a “Jaguar engine,” IMO, since it shares nothing with the Jaguar engine it’s “based” on. As I have also said before (in this thread IIRC), if Aston started with a Toyota engine and so comprehensively redeveloped it that the end result shared nothing with what it was based on, then that might be something I’d be interested in. I’ve said the same thing about Aston using a Benz engine.
FWIW, Nissans, IMO, generally have more character than Toyotas. Many of the Z-cars have character and, maybe, even the GT-R does.
readily visible
or
seeming real, though not necessarily true
Apparent perspective - as it appears. I used the word correctly, because your actual perspective is irrelevant, since I am only going off the words you've typed on the forum.
If you think I've misplaced this word, please let me know. I feel I have a decent grasp of the English language.
Your second to last paragraph is the information I was looking for. And this was my entire point. There are individuals, like yourself, who will take the position you've posted - Toyota does not belong with Aston.
My suggestion about the Nissan design for the McLaren is right on par with what I've been suggesting could be the IDENTICAL connection to Aston. With all of this apparent "knowledge" and "experience", one would think you'd know that whoever is brought on board with this partnership, that Aston Martin is not going to suddenly adopt the foreign company's philosophy.
Apparently not.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 926
From: NY
Rep Power: 74
The GT-R is irrelevant here. And, yes, "apparent". You can put quotes around words that may seem out of place... But I assure you, I meant apparent -
readily visible
or
seeming real, though not necessarily true
Apparent perspective - as it appears. I used the word correctly, because your actual perspective is irrelevant, since I am only going off the words you've typed on the forum.
If you think I've misplaced this word, please let me know. I feel I have a decent grasp of the English language.
Your second to last paragraph is the information I was looking for. And this was my entire point. There are individuals, like yourself, who will take the position you've posted - Toyota does not belong with Aston.
My suggestion about the Nissan design for the McLaren is right on par with what I've been suggesting could be the IDENTICAL connection to Aston. With all of this apparent "knowledge" and "experience", one would think you'd know that whoever is brought on board with this partnership, that Aston Martin is not going to suddenly adopt the foreign company's philosophy.
Apparently not.
readily visible
or
seeming real, though not necessarily true
Apparent perspective - as it appears. I used the word correctly, because your actual perspective is irrelevant, since I am only going off the words you've typed on the forum.
If you think I've misplaced this word, please let me know. I feel I have a decent grasp of the English language.
Your second to last paragraph is the information I was looking for. And this was my entire point. There are individuals, like yourself, who will take the position you've posted - Toyota does not belong with Aston.
My suggestion about the Nissan design for the McLaren is right on par with what I've been suggesting could be the IDENTICAL connection to Aston. With all of this apparent "knowledge" and "experience", one would think you'd know that whoever is brought on board with this partnership, that Aston Martin is not going to suddenly adopt the foreign company's philosophy.
Apparently not.
If my "actual perspective is irrelevant," then why are you spending so much time on it?
"The GT-R is irrelevant here." Sorry. You have decreed it irrelevant, and so it must be.
No one's perspective is relevant except yours. Apparently.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 664
From: Toronto
Rep Power: 56
The abstraction of this conversation is getting in the way of the reality.
Modern and rich car companies CAN MAKE just about anything. What they can make is less important than what they DO MAKE.
In the theoretical world of engineering all rich companies can and should be able to make a reliable 550 hp motor. That's not a huge engineering feat. Being able to make anything, dose not make it happen. Every project is created with an objective. With all the knowledge gained previously. There is no one way to do anything so decisions have to be made. Every decision to do one thing is also a decision to not do something else.
The very best cars are created like the very best of everything. With the vision of a person. Someone that gives a faceless corporation, culture. That culture, is what gives a car focus, a point of view and character. Amazing brands are not just an amalgamation of ability. They are a point of view. They are A WAY of doing something, not any way.
They are a decision to do one thing and not another.
To pretend that the culture of a company does not color the engineering decisions is inconsistent with the reality of all creative and knowledge based companies. Talent and a Point of View are equally important to engineering.
>
I think what you have heard over and over from Aston owners is that they don't see a good cultural fit between the values of Toyota road cars and Aston Martin (rumor or not). Perhaps a motor designed and creatd by an arms length Toyota race team might have the cache to sway people??
It's not bias either, it's preference. Aston buyers prefer a type of solution with a type of credibility attached to it. They like it so much they over pay for it.
Do you think the GTR fanboys would accept a Toyota motor? An engine pulled out of an Audi TT or a blown Chevy power plant? I'm pretty sure they would have bias as well. They want their brand of choice to be powered a certain way.
How much would a Ferrari be worth with a Toyota engine or a Chevy motor?
>
Does Aston need a partner to help reboot it for the future, yes. Does it need to be very careful who that is?
OBVIOUSLY.
(BTW, we all have a level of bias. Not just Aston guys. Just vist a CHevy vs Ford posting, or swap the wrong motor into a vintage car)
Just remember, this is our hobby. It's about having fun!!
Modern and rich car companies CAN MAKE just about anything. What they can make is less important than what they DO MAKE.
In the theoretical world of engineering all rich companies can and should be able to make a reliable 550 hp motor. That's not a huge engineering feat. Being able to make anything, dose not make it happen. Every project is created with an objective. With all the knowledge gained previously. There is no one way to do anything so decisions have to be made. Every decision to do one thing is also a decision to not do something else.
The very best cars are created like the very best of everything. With the vision of a person. Someone that gives a faceless corporation, culture. That culture, is what gives a car focus, a point of view and character. Amazing brands are not just an amalgamation of ability. They are a point of view. They are A WAY of doing something, not any way.
They are a decision to do one thing and not another.
To pretend that the culture of a company does not color the engineering decisions is inconsistent with the reality of all creative and knowledge based companies. Talent and a Point of View are equally important to engineering.
>
I think what you have heard over and over from Aston owners is that they don't see a good cultural fit between the values of Toyota road cars and Aston Martin (rumor or not). Perhaps a motor designed and creatd by an arms length Toyota race team might have the cache to sway people??
It's not bias either, it's preference. Aston buyers prefer a type of solution with a type of credibility attached to it. They like it so much they over pay for it.
Do you think the GTR fanboys would accept a Toyota motor? An engine pulled out of an Audi TT or a blown Chevy power plant? I'm pretty sure they would have bias as well. They want their brand of choice to be powered a certain way.
How much would a Ferrari be worth with a Toyota engine or a Chevy motor?
>
Does Aston need a partner to help reboot it for the future, yes. Does it need to be very careful who that is?
OBVIOUSLY.
(BTW, we all have a level of bias. Not just Aston guys. Just vist a CHevy vs Ford posting, or swap the wrong motor into a vintage car)
Just remember, this is our hobby. It's about having fun!!
Last edited by black penguin; Aug 12, 2012 at 12:14 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,625
From: fort lauderdale
Rep Power: 106
The abstraction of this conversation is getting in the way of the reality.
Modern and rich car companies CAN MAKE just about anything. What they can make is less important than what they DO MAKE.
In the theoretical world of engineering all rich companies can and should be able to make a reliable 550 hp motor. That's not a huge engineering feat. Being able to make anything, dose not make it happen. Every project is created with an objective. With all the knowledge gained previously. There is no one way to do anything so decisions have to be made. Every decision to do one thing is also a decision to not do something else.
The very best cars are created like the very best of everything. With the vision of a person. Someone that gives a faceless corporation, culture. That culture, is what gives a car focus, a point of view and character. Amazing brands are not just an amalgamation of ability. They are a point of view. They are A WAY of doing something, not any way.
They are a decision to do one thing and not another.
To pretend that the culture of a company does not color the engineering decisions is inconsistent with the reality of all creative and knowledge based companies. Talent and a Point of View are equally important to engineering.
>
I think what you have heard over and over from Aston owners is that they don't see a good cultural fit between the values of Toyota road cars and Aston Martin (rumor or not). Perhaps a motor designed and creatd by an arms length Toyota race team might have the cache to sway people??
It's not bias either, it's preference. Aston buyers prefer a type of solution with a type of credibility attached to it. They like it so much they over pay for it.
Do you think the GTR fanboys would accept a Toyota motor? An engine pulled out of an Audi TT or a blown Chevy power plant? I'm pretty sure they would have bias as well. They want their brand of choice to be powered a certain way.
How much would a Ferrari be worth with a Toyota engine or a Chevy motor?
>
Does Aston need a partner to help reboot it for the future, yes. Does it need to be very careful who that is?
OBVIOUSLY.
(BTW, we all have a level of bias. Not just Aston guys. Just vist a CHevy vs Ford posting, or swap the wrong motor into a vintage car)
Just remember, this is our hobby. It's about having fun!!
Modern and rich car companies CAN MAKE just about anything. What they can make is less important than what they DO MAKE.
In the theoretical world of engineering all rich companies can and should be able to make a reliable 550 hp motor. That's not a huge engineering feat. Being able to make anything, dose not make it happen. Every project is created with an objective. With all the knowledge gained previously. There is no one way to do anything so decisions have to be made. Every decision to do one thing is also a decision to not do something else.
The very best cars are created like the very best of everything. With the vision of a person. Someone that gives a faceless corporation, culture. That culture, is what gives a car focus, a point of view and character. Amazing brands are not just an amalgamation of ability. They are a point of view. They are A WAY of doing something, not any way.
They are a decision to do one thing and not another.
To pretend that the culture of a company does not color the engineering decisions is inconsistent with the reality of all creative and knowledge based companies. Talent and a Point of View are equally important to engineering.
>
I think what you have heard over and over from Aston owners is that they don't see a good cultural fit between the values of Toyota road cars and Aston Martin (rumor or not). Perhaps a motor designed and creatd by an arms length Toyota race team might have the cache to sway people??
It's not bias either, it's preference. Aston buyers prefer a type of solution with a type of credibility attached to it. They like it so much they over pay for it.
Do you think the GTR fanboys would accept a Toyota motor? An engine pulled out of an Audi TT or a blown Chevy power plant? I'm pretty sure they would have bias as well. They want their brand of choice to be powered a certain way.
How much would a Ferrari be worth with a Toyota engine or a Chevy motor?
>
Does Aston need a partner to help reboot it for the future, yes. Does it need to be very careful who that is?
OBVIOUSLY.
(BTW, we all have a level of bias. Not just Aston guys. Just vist a CHevy vs Ford posting, or swap the wrong motor into a vintage car)
Just remember, this is our hobby. It's about having fun!!
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,219
From: Fayetteville
Rep Power: 499
The GT-R brings along its own can of worms, that gets easily taken out of context. There are other analogies that could be made, with greater relevance, without the distractions.
And my perspective is irrelevant as well. I was just discussing the flaws of prejudging a car that doesn't exist yet. It doesn't mean I agree or disagree, it means that prejudging has a huge set of shortcomings.
Please don't ask,~"Well, if my apparent perspective is irrelevant, and your perspective is irrelevant, and the GT-R is irrelevant, then what are were we discussing?"
You are apparently more intelligent than that.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,219
From: Fayetteville
Rep Power: 499
The abstraction of this conversation is getting in the way of the reality.
Modern and rich car companies CAN MAKE just about anything. What they can make is less important than what they DO MAKE.
In the theoretical world of engineering all rich companies can and should be able to make a reliable 550 hp motor. That's not a huge engineering feat. Being able to make anything, dose not make it happen. Every project is created with an objective. With all the knowledge gained previously. There is no one way to do anything so decisions have to be made. Every decision to do one thing is also a decision to not do something else.
The very best cars are created like the very best of everything. With the vision of a person. Someone that gives a faceless corporation, culture. That culture, is what gives a car focus, a point of view and character. Amazing brands are not just an amalgamation of ability. They are a point of view. They are A WAY of doing something, not any way.
They are a decision to do one thing and not another.
To pretend that the culture of a company does not color the engineering decisions is inconsistent with the reality of all creative and knowledge based companies. Talent and a Point of View are equally important to engineering.
>
I think what you have heard over and over from Aston owners is that they don't see a good cultural fit between the values of Toyota road cars and Aston Martin (rumor or not). Perhaps a motor designed and creatd by an arms length Toyota race team might have the cache to sway people??
It's not bias either, it's preference. Aston buyers prefer a type of solution with a type of credibility attached to it. They like it so much they over pay for it.
Do you think the GTR fanboys would accept a Toyota motor? An engine pulled out of an Audi TT or a blown Chevy power plant? I'm pretty sure they would have bias as well. They want their brand of choice to be powered a certain way.
How much would a Ferrari be worth with a Toyota engine or a Chevy motor?
>
Does Aston need a partner to help reboot it for the future, yes. Does it need to be very careful who that is?
OBVIOUSLY.
(BTW, we all have a level of bias. Not just Aston guys. Just vist a CHevy vs Ford posting, or swap the wrong motor into a vintage car)
Just remember, this is our hobby. It's about having fun!!
Modern and rich car companies CAN MAKE just about anything. What they can make is less important than what they DO MAKE.
In the theoretical world of engineering all rich companies can and should be able to make a reliable 550 hp motor. That's not a huge engineering feat. Being able to make anything, dose not make it happen. Every project is created with an objective. With all the knowledge gained previously. There is no one way to do anything so decisions have to be made. Every decision to do one thing is also a decision to not do something else.
The very best cars are created like the very best of everything. With the vision of a person. Someone that gives a faceless corporation, culture. That culture, is what gives a car focus, a point of view and character. Amazing brands are not just an amalgamation of ability. They are a point of view. They are A WAY of doing something, not any way.
They are a decision to do one thing and not another.
To pretend that the culture of a company does not color the engineering decisions is inconsistent with the reality of all creative and knowledge based companies. Talent and a Point of View are equally important to engineering.
>
I think what you have heard over and over from Aston owners is that they don't see a good cultural fit between the values of Toyota road cars and Aston Martin (rumor or not). Perhaps a motor designed and creatd by an arms length Toyota race team might have the cache to sway people??
It's not bias either, it's preference. Aston buyers prefer a type of solution with a type of credibility attached to it. They like it so much they over pay for it.
Do you think the GTR fanboys would accept a Toyota motor? An engine pulled out of an Audi TT or a blown Chevy power plant? I'm pretty sure they would have bias as well. They want their brand of choice to be powered a certain way.
How much would a Ferrari be worth with a Toyota engine or a Chevy motor?
>
Does Aston need a partner to help reboot it for the future, yes. Does it need to be very careful who that is?
OBVIOUSLY.
(BTW, we all have a level of bias. Not just Aston guys. Just vist a CHevy vs Ford posting, or swap the wrong motor into a vintage car)
Just remember, this is our hobby. It's about having fun!!
I had not, up to this point, drew a parallel of a Mustang with an LS1 in it, or a Camaro with a 5.0 (I know you didn't, but the image was conveyed).
I don't see Aston having any direct competition. Basically, because I feel they appeal to a different market, I believe that the room of possible partnerships extends wider than, say..., the Chevy and Ford thing.
There already is a lot of technology/platform sharing in the industry (and also was questioned earlier in this very thread). Do we question the origin of every bolt, liner, adhesive, etc...? Usually only when things go wrong, causing an investigation.
My point - Aston could partner with a decent amount of companies, and it's possible nobody would know anything about it, unless things go wrong.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,024
From: Austin
Rep Power: 67
I would personally continue to be OK with it. Ford has a fantastic and storied racing history. If they wanted to continue a relationship helping with the basic footprint as well as utilizing their quality control then I say yes!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
biggynuts01
Automotive Parts & Accessories For Sale/Wanted
1
Sep 1, 2015 03:06 AM
