It seems as though you have acceptable limits of certain characteristics of certain parts.

Would a Gumpert be different? Ascari? Koenigsegg? Pagani Zonda or Huarya? etc...

I'm not sure if the engine is the defining characteristic of a car. It is more significant than others, sure, but the Mercedes mantra seems VERY much inline with Aston - large displacement, gobs of torque, N/A (optional - would be cool if the bi-turbo V12 found it's way into a DB9 (or Vantage)...

Could you imagine a factory Vantage with with WELL over 700 TQ and well over 600HP?

I think it would give Aston a much needed image boost.

Would you rather pay $200k for a Mercedes SL65? Or $~$180k (estimate based on current pricing) on a Vantage/DB9 with the same power plant?

I think it would be easy for me. Might even make me try and get the wife to hold off on next gen R8 (we'll see where the 4C goes). But an Aston with this much power would undeniably find itself relevant again, and not just a - well, it is as powerful as one would need to get to the Cars and Coffee meets...

 

Gumpert, Koenigsegg, Ascari, Pagani -- none has approx. a century's worth of heritage that includes building its own engines. Aston does.

I wouldn't pay $200K for an SL65 because it's not really my kind of car. I wouldn't pay $180K or whatever the price would be for an Aston with the SL65's engine because I have no interest in an Aston with a Benz engine dropped in it, regardless of how powerful that engine would be.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Aston's V12 is a Cosworth from when Ford owned them and the V8 is a Jag. I know they are modified from the base, but the power plant itself is definitely not Aston. I'd call it more Aston modifying/tuning the engine to their specs which falls in alignment with my point of Aston refinement. If it was a truly Aston engine it would leak oil like all true british cars do

 

The V12 was originally created by Ford/Cosworth, and it's "based" on the architecture of the Duratec V6 -- bore spacings and such things are the same. It is not a "purebred" Aston engine in the way that the Tadek Marek straight 6 and V8 engines are. However, for me, this engine qualifies as an "Aston" engine because it was then developed for use by Aston Martin, and it has only ever been used in Aston Martins. It is not just two V6s stuck together, and no other marque has ever used it.

The current V8 is not "purebred" either; it's "based" on the Jaguar V8, but it is so completely reengineered that, for me, it qualifies as an Aston engine. Essentially nothing is interchangeable -- very nearly every piece is bespoke to Aston Martin. The 4.3L block was cast to the same specs as the Jag block, but then machined differently so the resulting AM block is different from the Jag block. The 4.7L block is, I think, cast to its own specs (I haven't been able to confirm this -- does anyone know?). Either way, the resulting 4.7L block is unique to Aston. Both the 4.3 and the 4.7 have their own bespoke crank, rods, pistons, rings, bearings, heads, cams, valves, etc., etc. -- basically every part is unique to Aston Martin.

Contrast this with, for example, Bentley's Conti GT engines. Both the W12 and the V8 are used in both Bentleys and in Audis. Bentley says they're Bentley engines, but they're really just tuned and dressed Audi engines. They sound different in a Bentley than they do in an Audi, they have different power and torque characteristics, but the engine is the same engine.

If the next generation Aston engines are bespoke to the degree that the current engines are, they should be awesome, and I would consider them Aston engines. If they are versions of AMG engines in a manner similar to the "differences" between the engine in a Conti GT V8 and the engine in an Audi S8 -- that would be a crying shame.

I may be a purist, but I'm not an unreasonable one

 

If they are losing money they will make whatever changes they need to get in the black. I bet everything is on the table. Either that or they will be gobbled up. Porsche went through this same problem and their solution was mass produced Boxsters and 996 911's. The purists hated them but those cars saved Porsche's bacon. Then they sold anyway

It's tough to make a ultra premium car that is built in old school ways and make a profit.

 

Yes, it is very difficult to make an ultra premium car built in old school ways and make a profit. However, Aston has managed to significantly modernize production methods while retaining a lot of the traditional hand-builtness, which is central to the appeal.

Aston Martin is so desirable, so aspirational in a way that Porsche is not -- especially now that Porsches are mass-produced in such large quantities -- that they must not go down the Porsche path. If they do, the specialness, the intangibles that make us lust after Astons, will simply cease to exist. We're about to see hundreds of thousands more "Porsches" on the road with the soon-to-be-released Macan. Which, of course, is a next-gen Q5 underneath. It'll make money, but yuck.

Some of the appeal of Aston is that they aren't Porsche.

 

Ouch! I think the 911 has evolved quite well (besides the lazy design team). Yes, there are other cars with the badge on it, that are driven by people who have no idea what a 911 is, but that shouldn't ruin it for other 911 owners who can make the distinction.

I see your perspective regarding the specialness of the Aston line, as I'm a huge fan of them as well. I've driven several, and have enjoyed every occasion when I have had the opportunity. But let's not take anything away from the 911, simply because of the way parts are assembled. At some point - I'd prefer a more sturdy partial machine build, than a hand crafted piece that is not up to specs of .001" tolerance, which may fail because of 'human' interaction.

There is balance. And I feel the 911 has maintained the optimal balance, while maintaining performance as a priority, as opposed to a luxury GT car (which Aston owns the 911, in my opinion).

I'd speculate we are still witnessing the results of the NSX coming into the market over 20 years ago, when Honda said ~ A car doesn't have to cost that much, and be that unreliable, to be that much fun and comfortable. It was revolutionary, and I think Ferrari and Porsche were forced to show their hand. Aston, on the other hand, wanted no part of this. It seems they feel there is no equivalent. As a Lotus fan, I also wonder - who does Lotus think their competition is? I mean - simply because a car gets reviewed in a magazine, doesn't mean it is appropriate competition (I see competition as any other car that a buyer may chose for whatever reason over that car). But what does Aston compare themselves to? Is this the reason they are just staying within the lines - and evolve with laws regarding emissions, etc...? No denying they are beautiful works of art, but the design hasn't really changed over the last several years (no need to, in my opinion), but that should leave PLENTY of room on the table to improve in other ways (since they are no longer keeping clay models around with 3D printers, etc...).

 

One thing that boggles my mind is Aston investing a ton into the One77 and then putting a crazy price tag on it. They should have made it a 400k car to compete with the Aventador, FF, F12 and I think they would have blown them away. The One77 is a work of art and at 400k they could have sold a lot of them. I know I would be praying for the depreciation to hit hard so I could afford one

In addition, it would have put Aston back into the spotlight because magazines would be comparing them and test driving them. People would lust for them and it would help the brand gain more awareness. It wouldn't get them back in the black but it would definitely push them into the right direction.

 

This.

I fear it just didn't provide the enduring halo effect that they hoped it would. And now that they made such a big (stupid) deal about the scarcity and exclusivity of it, they are locked out of sharing it's awesomeness across the line for at least a little longer.

The new Vanquish should have had every ounce of that engine in it. Fully tuned. Gaydon wouldn't be able to build them fast enough. The One-77 should have been a production super car and the Vanquish it's GT follow up. $300k to $400k and they'd be crushing the others in that price point.

Why would you only build less than 100 of the best thing you've ever created?

 

If they would have mass produced the One-77, the reviews would have all commented on how it doesn't stack up to the performance of the F12, etc. By keeping it a sort of novelty, it avoided this scrutiny.

 

When it was announced (and even launched), the F12 didn't exist yet. And even if it did, I think a head to head with the One-77 at $400k would have made Aston Martin look pretty damn impressive. Instead, no one even got to do such a comparison and Aston never got to show of their rather impressive engineering feats to more than a very few people. I'm no product marketing pro, but I think Aston's current fortunes are a good argument that their marketing choices of late have been wrongheaded.

 

My point was that it wouldn't stack up performance-wise with other cars at that price point (Aventador?) and it'd be the same story as always (the Aston doesn't perform as well but just look at it!).

 

Maybe they would have but of the reviews it has received (that I know of), have all been positive. It won't be as quick to 60 because it's not all wheel drive but it has 750hp and a top speed of 220 which more than competes. It's also an Aston and not expected to be the quickest or fastest. The fact that at least some of the numbers compare would have gone a long way.

 

Autoblog must be reading this thread: http://www.autoblog.com/2013/10/18/a...plays-hybrids/

 

This seems a bit ironic - I didn't notice any minimalist lightweight cars with no electric components. Anyone please feel free to point me in the direction of the cars Dr Bez was referring to...

It just sounds like an excuse to not invest in their future (because they don't have enough money).