The Cayenne is nothing more than a Giant Volkswagan. It's a toureg with a different engine.

 

Jasper,

Do you think there is only one way to adapt? Just take the path of least resistance? Drop a Chevy V8 (or a Benz V8) into an Aston -- hey, it's cheap, and we've adapted. Stick an AM grille on a Toyota iQ -- "we've adapted."

I never suggested that AM shouldn't adapt -- any company that wants to remain in business has to adapt. HOW to adapt is the important and difficult part.

 

WTF? What do comments like this even mean?
Can a car only be awesome if it's a fragile, finicky rattle box? The production expertise and engineering at VW is amazing and as good as any out there. Price point to price point, the design and production groups at VW can deliver a world class product as good and better than most.

To say that the Cayanne is only different at the engine is ignorant or willfully delusional. Yes, they share many components and assemblies but that hardly makes them only an engine spec apart.

I'm not a huge VW fan, I just can't stand hearing this baseless complaining about how the engineering and production from a large company must necessarily debase any product they touch. Like them or not Bentleys are brilliant cars under VW. and better at being Bentleys then any Bentley had been in decades. Oh how I wish I could still buy a $200k Bentley with faulty electrical assemblies and a temperamental drive train.

The Cayanne is an awesome SUV. You may or may not like SUVs, but it is pretty much impossible to argue that it isn't every bit a Porsche. An SUV has to be an SUV. If Aston Martin builds one, my hope is that it is fast, luxurious, and the most beautiful SUV anyone's ever seen.

 

Current Astons are nothing like “fragile, finicky rattle boxes.” That‘s long since past. The “baseless complaining” isn’t baseless at all. Nearly all of us who worry about what a major company might do give big credit to what Ford did with Aston. The concern is that Aston ends up following the platform-sharing path that VW, for example, does so prolifically. It’s extremely easy to argue that a Cayenne isn’t a Porsche, regardless of how capable a device it is. Not only does it sit on the same platform as the Touareg, some of them use VW engines. Different body panels, a different interior and a different suspension setup isn’t enough to make it a Porsche in many people’s view. Why is a vehicle with a VW platform and a VW driveline a Porsche?

If I want a VW, I’ll buy a VW. What I don’t want is an Aston Martin that is a VW, or a Mercedes, or whatever else under the skin no matter how good a car it may be. That's not the only way to make a great car. I want an Aston Martin because I want an Aston Martin. If it’s not as objectively perfect as a VW, that’s OK (to a point, of course).

Personally, I’d much rather have a ‘90s Bentley Continental R than a Phaeton-based Conti GT. I’m sure the current car will be less finicky, but we’ve come a long way since the ‘90s. My ’09 Aston Martin has been extremely reliable – far more so than our '11 and ’12 Mercedes-Benzes.

Platform sharing is not used by VW to make a better or more desirable Bentley, it’s used to make a “Bentley” that is cheaper and more profitable to build and sell. There is no way that Bentley engineers, had they sat down on their own and decided to build a modern Continental, would have designed a car that has a front-wheel drive architecture adapted to all-wheel drive, with a huge “W” engine living way up front, as far forward as absolutely possible in true Audi style and with the weight distribution issues that design brings, as well as the resulting massive front overhang that throws off the proportions. This is the case solely due to platform sharing. Very nice car it is, but a Bentley? Not to me, not enough anyway. The new Mulsanne does not share a platform...

To me, at this level of car what matters is not how well you disguise what is underneath – what matters is what is underneath.

 

I love VW's but I would not pay porsche money for one. The Cayenne shares almost EVERY part with the Toureg outside of the engine. It's not like they just share a few things like a Bentley having a Volkswagen shifter. It's everything with the addition of very minimal additional leather.

The cayenne is not worth the additional money over a Toureg.

 

well said.....

 

Agreed. Perhaps my response was minimalist. I'm leery about AM, most notably regarding the DBS/Vanquish/Virage/etc... I practically sold the wife on one, and we ended up going another route (more Italian - so not better in all ways). It was not the purchase - that is easy, it was the maintenance and ownership that we had an issue with. And not just on the current model (we were eyeballing the DB9), it is the end result of what would happen if we kept it.

I'm one for buying cars to enjoy them. But if maintaining it becomes a chore (typical of low volume cars in the past), then count me out.

Unfortunately, I didn't learn from my own lesson, and the wife has decided on an Alfa 4C -but mainly because there is a Fiat dealership less than 3 miles from my house. We'll see how that turns out.
Great post!

 

I was talking about old Porsches. Purists seem to long for the good ol' days. Good luck with that.

um, aren't the original Porsche's pretty much tarted up VWs? I think someone needs to define what makes a Porsche thus. Used to be that it HAD to be rear engine, air cooled to be a Porsche. Nope, that's gone. Ok, HAS to be rear boxer config engine. Nope, 924, 944, 928. So what is it? Please define this hallowed truth. Same for Aston Martin; please define how we should distinguish a real Aston Martin from one that is not. My Vantage has Ford Corp parts bin bits all over it yet no one calls it an inferior Aston.

Ok, so what does that mean? Is a Continental GT less satisfying to you just because you know that it has VW assemblies or due to some truly tangible, empirical difference? Maybe we just have different reactions to the same data. You call it "disguising" what's underneath, as if what's there is inferior and shameful. I happen to think the V and W engines from VW are plenty impressive and Bentley/Bugatti do a pretty good job of showing just how awesome these power plants are.

I guess I just bristle at all of the fear. I too want Aston Martin to remain unique, special and independent. I want their adaptations to be wise and cautious. But I don't want to see Aston just go away, driven into the ground by standing on some antiquated principle of purity.

 

I don't know part for part what all they share but if you drive a Cayenne and a Toureg, they definitely do not feel the same. I was impressed with the Cayenne and completely underwhelmed by the Toureg. I do agree that a new Cayenne isn't worth the money but not because it shares parts. I just think it's overpriced when you can have a lightly used one for so much less.

Parts sharing doesn't bother me. All the automakers do it. Ferrari has rebadged Maserati and Ford bits, Lambo has Audi bits, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Lotus, etc. Overall they have helped improve reliability across the board and made exotics more enjoyable to own and drive and not just a garage queen money pit.

 

Yes, all of that. Thank you.

 

+1 to this.

Aston can still be Aston with an AMG powerplant, drivetrain, technology and internals. They just need to put their Aston touch on it, which would be refinement, exhaust note, and an exterior design that is timeless. I don't want to see Aston go by the wayside stuck on principles that put it out of business.

 

Gentlemen,

“Porsche” is certainly not easy to define, and it undoubtedly means different things to different people. For me, though, Porsche should mean "sports car" or "race car," and emphatically not "SUV." I’ll always remember when a 12-ish-year-old boy asked me what kind of car my 993 was – when I told him it was a Porsche, he looked surprised and said, “Oh really, I thought Porsche made trucks.”

All 356s, right from the very beginning, used their own chassis, which was not VW-based. The engines were obviously based on the VW design, but that, of course, was designed by a certain F. Porsche, and the 356 engines were heavily reengineered. The engines became increasingly further removed from the Beetle’s as the car developed.

I acknowledge being something of a purist, but I don’t think that “Porsche” must mean rear-engined and air-cooled. I’ve always been a fan of the 944, 968 and 928, for example. For me, the problem with the 996/997 is not that they’re water-cooled (I do miss the unique air-cooled engine, but I readily acknowledge the need to change to water-cooling). Rather, it’s that they were designed to be cheap to build – and the quality of these engines is just embarrassing compared to the engineering thoroughness and build quality of the Mezger engine. I have no issue at all with the water-cooled Mezger engines used in the GT3, GT2 and Turbos (through the 997.1 Turbo). It’s the complete change in philosophy – marketing and profits over engineering – that I don’t like. Of course profits are important, but we all know that the greatest margins rarely produce the best – or most desirable -- product.

For me, the Cayenne is just wrong. That’s the purist in me. I fully acknowledge that it’s an extremely capable SUV, but it’s just wrong. You know what I mean, even though you may well disagree. Yes, it makes money, but much of that goes to Cayenne development (and now “Cajun” development – another Audi/VW underneath…), not just to 911 development as Porsche tells everyone, and that whole business philosophy led to David’s disastrous attempt to eat Goliath, getting swallowed in the process. No, it’s not that simple, but it never is.

Component sharing: I don’t have an issue with component sharing itself – it’s the category of component that matters. My V8V has Ford bits in it, but sharing of bits has always been the case with low-volume manufacturers. Look at the switchgear in a ‘70s Aston – it’s full of Jaguar and others’ stuff. The current cars have more bespoke switchgear than ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s Astons. The point is sharing of bits vs. sharing of major components – like platforms and engines. The structure of an Aston needs to be truly bespoke. The engine is the heart of the car – it needs to be bespoke, at least to the degree that the current engines are. No other car uses the V12, and the V8 has its own crank, rods, pistons, heads, valves, cams, the block is machined to AM-only specs (the 4.7 may have a unique casting also – does anyone know?), etc.

A Volvo mirror switch doesn’t render an Aston less of an Aston. An AMG engine dropped in an Aston engine bay would make it not enough of an Aston to me, regardless of how good an engine it is. An AMG engine “retuned for Aston” the way the Conti V8’s engine is “different” from its Audi V8 counterpart? Not nearly good enough – let’s be honest, it’s an Audi engine. An engine “based” on an AMG engine but as different from its AMG origin as the current V8 is from its Jaguar origin, well, that could be awesome.

Conti GT: Yes, it’s less satisfying to me because I know what’s underneath. I’d want a Bentley, not a VW modified (however extensively) into a Bentley. Unlike most buyers, I also know that its layout and proportions are compromised due to being based on/shared with something else. I fully realize that nearly everyone who buys one doesn’t know what’s underneath. Many of them wouldn’t care, but many clearly do – I’ve seen many owners’ horrified reactions when someone has told them the truth. They’re shocked, dismayed, angry, and sometimes they just don’t believe it. In those cases it’s just due to snobbery, but it’s telling, and somewhat amusing.

If all that is required to be an Aston is taking a car and (from RossL) putting the “Aston touch on it, which would be refinement, exhaust note, and an exterior design that is timeless,” then AM has been wasting their time all these years. Would a Mercedes SL with those “Aston touches” be an Aston? No way.

I don’t want see (quoting RossL again) “Aston go by the wayside stuck on its principles” either, but to throw those principles away could lead to a very nice car that is not an Aston Martin. I don’t want to see that either.

Would a Ferrari be a Ferrari with an AMG engine or platform?

 

How about watercooled engines, electronic steering to name a couple of things that have been controversial haha.

Ferrari does not build cars - they build engines and makes cars to sell engines

 

So we're all pretty much having a heated agreement, aren't we?

To some, no SUV should have ever been called a Porsche. Perhaps this should be true for Aston Martin.

Aston certainly owns enough tradition cred to call the Rapide a true Aston Martin. Would the Jet really so sully the Aston line if it became a production car (please, please, please)?

So yeah, no one wants to see a straight pull or even tuned AMG power plant in an Aston Martin. I've got to believe they know that would kill them. Plus, AMG as a brand wants to protect their market, so they'd certainly insist on some clear distinction. And I think we all agree that any visible part, display or feature should be 100% AM.

Now let's all cross our fingers, voice our opinions and hope they're reading along. 'Cuz, according to Grant, they actually do listen to their customers.

 

^^^ Well said. The only concern I have with it is this (the part I bolded):

Bez thought the Cygnet was a great idea...

Let's hope they've learned something!