I honestly don't know. Even if we assume it does, the SL73 is hardly a normal production Benz.

 

The SL73 was a normal production engine built by AMG. You could also have it in the CL or S Class.

Brabus also made a version of the same engine and also put it in an E Class, both sedan and wagon.

The Alpina cars are assembled on the BMW production line alongside regular production BMW cars.

Porsche made the Audi RS2 Avant in the Porsche factory in Stuttgart with Porsche employees, and did the same with the Mercedes E500 (92-95). Is the Ferrari 612 and others assembled by Scaglietti or Zagato no longer a Ferrari? What about the Astons made by Zagato and Bertone? I'm sure Andrea Zagato will tell you that his creations still remain Astons or Ferrari etc...

Wiesmann uses BMW engines, Gumpert uses Audi engines, Koeniggsegg uses Ford engines, and there are hundreds more examples.

Aston also used the supercharged Jag I6,

Several Riva boats have been made with Ferrari and Lamborghini engines, does that make them Ferrari boats?

It seems some posters here mix logic and emotion.

If the Aston is bought simply for an emotional response, that's perfectly fine. However to say it is logical would be untrue in the definition of logic.

I purchased my Aston on emotional grounds, it made me feel good, so good I wrote a nice check.

 

I certainly never suggested my views on this are logical, though I think they're quite consistent. It's precisely because they are emotional that this matters to me.

Are you really comparing Alpina, which began as an independent tuner, to Aston Martin?

Porsche built the RS2, and developed it. It's and Audi and it uses an Audi engine, not a Porsche engine.

The M-B E500 was also built largely by Porsche. Does it use a Porsche engine? No, it uses a M-B engine.

Wiesmann, Gumpert: zero heritage of building their own engines -- in contrast to Ferrari and Aston. The "Ford" engines used by Koeniggsegg are hardly off-the-shelf items. Do you see them in a Mustang? Clearly no.

Riva. Seriously??? Are you suggesting that I would consider any boat powered by a MerCruiser engine a MerCruiser boat? Is a Hatteras powered by MAN a MAN boat? Let's not get absurd. What boat manufacturer built its own engines???

Porsches built by Karmann aren't Karmanns.
Cadillacs built by Fisher aren't Fishers.
Astons built at Tickford aren't Tickfords.

Scaglietti built Ferraris since nearly the beginning -- it's an inherent part of Ferrari history. No Ferrari has ever had a Scaglietti engine. Or an AMG engine.

DB7s are beautiful and saved the company when it really was on the brink of disaster, but I've never really ached to own one because they use a Jaguar platform and (for the i6) a Jaguar engine. It was born out of a truly desperate time, and it saved the company. But look what Ford (to its immense credit) did after -- they built the Vanquish and then the Gaydon cars on their own bespoke platforms, and no more engine sharing. Because it matters.

 

Ah, the never-ending debate of automobile heritage. The auto industry is so inbred these days that I honestly think it's a moot point. To me, it isn't necessarily where the parts come from, but how they're used. If AM is able to make the AMG 4.0TT feel and sound like an Aston-worthy engine, I'm happy. I have no doubt they can get the engine feel right - there's so much flexibility with turbocharged cars that it's easy to change the way they feel. As for sound - I have my doubts.

Turbocharged cars I like the sound of? Subarus. I love the boxer rumble. But I'm weird like that. I also loved the sound of the ported rotary in my old FD3S RX7.

Supercharged cars, like the Koenigsegg, are easier to tune for sound because the FI is pre-exhaust. Turbochargers act as mufflers since they're in the exhaust.

As for the DB9GT, it's a nice little update to the model. But guys like us that follow the models as they develop are looking for something more substantial.

 

I drove the V8TT last week... It actually sounds amazing for a twin turbo engine. Sounds very similar to the old 6.3s surprisingly. There is very little hint it is a twin turbo. I drove a tuned version of it as well ... The motor is an absolute monster when tuned.

The only downside is stock turbos run out of steam past 6500 rpm, it's not the same style power band (which is why I am getting a 2016 GT before the original Aston V8s are gone for good). Technological progress is great, but I love the analogue Astons the most. Once they go AMG, they will definitely be a lot more digital.

 

That is correct... There are only 25 in existence

 

I completely disagree (surprise ). Yes, there is a lot of inbreeding -- that's partly why it is so important to me to STOP that when it comes to Aston Martin. Astons are not commodity cars. Nor are Ferraris, but M-Bs and BMWs are. For me, it's not the small components that matter -- the electrical architecture, for example. It's the major stuff -- the structure and the engine, basically the bones and the heart of a car. An electronically tweaked AMG engine is an AMG engine. It's NOT an Aston Martin engine, and it doesn't belong in an Aston.

I'm quite sure that other engines in years and decades past could have been made to sound or feel like Aston engines. No reason a Maserati V8, or even a Chevy V8, couldn't have been made to sound or feel like an Aston engine. This is nothing new. But it wouldn't have been an Aston engine -- these ideas were discussed and rejected by David Brown and Victor Gauntlett, to name two, because an Aston deserves its own engine. It wouldn't have been an Aston engine then, and an off-the-shelf AMG engine won't be an Aston engine tomorrow.

It's not just what the car does -- it's what it is. An Aston Martin should be different from other cars -- that's how they came to be the icon they are. Aston Martin would never have earned its place at the top level of the automotive hierarchy if they were merely revised versions of something else. Again, would a Ferrari be a Ferrari if it had an AMG engine that sounded like a Ferrari engine? Nope.

All of the truly great marques built their names using their own chassis and engines. If you lose that, you cheapen and degrade the marque.

 

I agree with you except for one key factor: AML is in a perpetual state of being broke.

They've always been on the verge of bankruptcy. They can't afford to modernize the cars enough to stay both competitive and compliant with regulations. Ideally, the engines from M-B would be revised to offer more peak power, rather than dropping off at 6500 rpm. But if I remember correctly, it's been said that M-B is supplying off the shelf units.

I'd absolutely love to see the current 4.7L V8 continue development. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen. All we can do at this point is hope for the best. If the next generation of AMs don't shine, then at least we've got our current ones to hold onto.

 

Pure speculation, of course, but I'd venture that if AM had been a producer of beautiful cars but used someone else's off-the-shelf engines, they would have been out of business permanently a long time ago. The company and the cars are so beloved, they have such a strong emotional appeal, that several people have stepped in over the years to ensure that they survive. Obviously, it would be better if that hadn't been necessary (and not necessary going forward), but the actions of those saviors speaks volumes about the love for the marque. There is something uniquely special about Aston Martin, and I just don't think that would have come to be had they merely bought in someone else's engines. Would their racing successes have mattered as much if the engines in those cars were Benzes? Or Chevy's? No. Aston Martin engines are integral to the magic and the mystique.

That said... I don't expect AM to produce a clean-sheet new engine on their own. What I do think is reasonable is for them not to take the cheapest way out, which would be to drop off-the-shelf AMG engines into Astons. Use them as a base, but make substantive changes to make them Aston Martin engines, in a manner similar to what they did with the current V8. The current AM V8 engine, as we've discussed, started out "derived from" the Jag V8, but has its own block, crank, rods, pistons, heads, cams, etc. This was far less costly than producing an all-new engine, but the result is an engine that is bespoke to Aston -- an Aston Martin engine IMO. Of course it would've been cheaper to drop an off-the-shelf Jag engine into the V8V and change its electronics to make it "like" an Aston engine. But it wouldn't be an Aston engine. The AMG engine, unchanged but for electronics and exhaust, dropped into Astons would be a crying shame.

This is Aston Martin -- spend the money (more than just dropping the off-the-shelf AMG in but much less than a clean-sheet design) and do it right. The marque is worth it.

 

Dear Speedraser,

Apologies for you thinking the engine bit comment was based on logic. As it appears that your comment was based on an emotional response, and not logic as you have confirmed.
Replies to each point you made on an individual basis would take too long, so I'll leave it at one point as noted below.

Yes, with your comments on Aston engines being exclusively Aston, this is exactly what you are implying for automobiles as noted clearly in your statement above as an absurd concept.

However, you are applying a different standard to boats and planes than to cars by your own accord. Granted it's an emotional standard, and as such, cannot be effectively quantified. It is just an opinion (yours) with statements to corroberate it that also have no logic other than your fully entitled to belief.

In any event, my mention of boats, and planes where the manufacturer makes the vehicle and sources power from an engine supplier is to make a factual point that in other industries, it is quite the norm, and even a preferred production method to build vehicles in several industries including the automobile industry.

Last I checked, I can order several planes with a choice of BMW/Rolls-Royce Engines, GE, or UTC (Pratt&Whitney) all of which are great. Same for the boats, lots of diesel choices for bigger boats from MAN, Yanmar, Wartsila, etc, and in many powerboats, Volvo & Mercruiser are the norm. Most yachts or jets cost many multiples of a new Aston, save maybe a Vulcan or the 177, and buyers are very happy to still buy those items. I suspect that these same buyers will be fine buying an Aston with an AMG, or slightly modified AMG/MB engine.

Personally, I get wonderful emotional feelings from Bizzarinis and Paganis. Old car and new car, both without their own manufactured engines. My current boat is powered by Volvo, and runs like a champ.

As far as your emotional opinion on an Aston should have an Aston made engine, that is perfectly clear now. As I mentioned earlier, I try to keep to facts and science while understanding the difference between feelings and factual matters or logic.

In any event, Aston cannot continue to produce its engines exclusively any longer. This is irrespective of what Brown, Livanos, or Gauntlett said. They have all had chances at running a money losing company. The Richards, Bez, Palmer, Mercedes Benz and Meccanica Invest team all need this company to make money. My support is with them, and to keep the company going for another 100 years.

While it's important emotionally to you, I think that the Board is making the right decision to source power somewhere else and possibly modify it lightly to run in AM products. This will help the company survive, and prosper instead of going the way of many now defunct car companies. That makes me feel happy, rather than struggling to survive in the ever complex regulatory car world we live in.

In any event, if you ever make it to Monterey Week, come to the Aston Estate. I am sure Palmer, Reichmann & Bez will be interested to hear what you have to say. I'll be the tan guy on the lawn having a drink with them as I have been doing for many of the past years. Your beer is on me.!

Best Regards,

 

Lotus is a brand with lots of heritage that has had many racing successes in its history. Over more than 50 years, they have used engines from numerous companies including Ford, Cosworth, Renault, Honda, Toyota and even Lamborghini. I don't think it has affected their heritage to do this and, unless you're an enthusiast, you probably don't even know or care what engine was used in their winning cars.

 

Planes and boats...talk about going on an irrelevant tangent. Lotus, Bizzarini, Pagani...all cars that NEVER made their own engines in the first place, so again apples/oranges. I would love a Pagani, no matter what motivates it.

Here's the relevant test. Would you buy a Ferrari if they suddenly decided to stop making their own engine and chuck some AMG lump into the engine bay? You know you wouldn't, and neither would anyone else.

 

Um, you need to get your facts straight on this one, Steve. The Lotus Esprit had its 4 and 8 cylinder engines designed and built in-house. I even got to meet and get the autograph of the man who designed them before he passed away.

Also, why is it ok to have the gearbox manufactured by someone else on all our cars, but not the engine? They're both integral parts of the drivetrain.

BTW: I do realize that having this argument is like trying to convince someone to switch their religion, political affiliation or sexual persuasion. It's a moot point.

 

Exactly, except that Lotus sometimes made their engines. But that was only sometimes, and Lotus heritage is certainly not tied to engine building the way Aston's is. BTW, Lotus's using other companies' engines hasn't exactly led it to financial stability...

The boat/plane analogies are simply not valid -- boat plane companies basically never made their own engines -- the industries are completely different in this respect, and there is ZERO history/heritage involved with boat companies building engines (except for the occasional marine engine company who then tried to get into building boats, which didn't work). Even "Chris-Craft" engines are based on supplier engines. Cars are completely different in this regard, and cars are what are being discussed. Many yacht owners would not buy an Aston that has been reduced to using off-the-shelf engines any more than they would buy a Ferrari with someone else's off-the-shelf engine. Integrity matters.

When logic is the main consideration, the whole Aston idea goes straight out the window. As it does for any exotic or luxury item. Emotion is what this is about.

Once again, I find myself having to repeat: The notion that the only solution to financial stability is to take the easiest and cheapest path -- off-the-shelf AMG engines -- is absurd. I do not think AM should design and build their own clean sheet engines (in a perfect world, yes please, but this world is certainly not perfect). Take the AMG engine as a base and change it in substantive mechanical ways to make it (at least arguably) a bespoke Aston engine. Recall, BTW, that when the deal was announced it explicitly stated that "bespoke Aston Martin engines" would be developed by AMG and Aston. Changing the AMG engine in some meaningful ways need not break the bank, and it would potentially allow Aston to retain credibility as a thoroughbred on par with Ferrari. The debate isn't only off-the-shelf vs clean sheet -- there is a very viable middle ground that could result in credibly Aston Martin engines that won't cost a complete fortune.

As I've asked many times (and Steve alluded to) -- would Ferrari ever even consider using someone else's off-the-shelf engine? Of course not, because it's an absurd notion. It should be no different for Aston Martin. The cheapest way is NOT the best way. Aston deserves better.

Look at classic car values: The most desirable and valuable marques build their own engines, or at the very least use an engine that was built explicitly and uniquely for that car.

 

If 28 years is "sometimes" then, yes.

I won't even go into all the details on how Lotus Engineering has actually done development for almost every major car company on the globe, including Aston Martin, GM, Ford, Toyota, Porsche...

But you seem to be very sensitive and intense about defending your views on this subject. Would you like a glass of warm milk and some cookies? I don't want you to get upset.

BTW, no, Ferrari would never consider building cars with someone else's engines because they would never need to. They have very deep pockets and have been a part of one of the largest automotive groups on the planet. If they had been strapped for cash, the story might be different.