Aston Martin DB9 GT breaks cover
#46
07-07-2015, 06:03 AM
No doubt a end to an era! The current V12 is one of my favorite engines. Not only is this engine smooth, powerful, and torquey but its very reliable! I can't think of many V12's that are even remotely reliable as the one in the DB9 and Vanq. As a guy who thinks having your own breed of engines is important to a brands image it is disappointing to find out they will be using AMG engines. Time will only tell if it will matter to me when it comes time for another Aston.
#47
07-07-2015, 08:33 AM
Aston Martin DB9 GT breaks cover
Originally Posted by XJRS Owner
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.
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.
Actually, if Ferrari made a car with another engine, I would buy one.
Case in point... 599 hybrid Kers. They won't sell me one, but I would buy it.
Arguing against logic and fact with emotion is not a case where you can use facts to corroborate your feelings. They are yours and you're entitled to them. Insane or not...
#48
07-07-2015, 09:33 AM
Aston Martin DB9 GT breaks cover
Originally Posted by Speedraser
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.
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.
Fact Ford aerospace made their own planes and engines, it was called a Tri motor. Please don't make statements that are untrue based on your limited knowledge of historical fact. You will embarrass yourself.
Emotions sell planes and boats as well as Astons, I agree. However this has nothing to do with the engine being produced by the manufacturer. In the higher end of the market it is in fact, more common to have a vehicle with power sourced from another supplier. At the lower end of the market it is more common to have engines supplied by the manufacturer. Compare prices of Toyotas and Pagani.
As far as Aston engines being unique to Aston, that is not true. Look under historical facts and see for yourself. Hint, Lola. The Aston engined Lola was not successful as the engine was not as durable as the ford and GM units.
As before, you're fully entitled to your feelings about Aston engines. Even if the current V12 is based on ford duratech architecture and heads developed by cosworth. Aston may assemble the engine, but they didn't design it from scratch.
The previous V8 in the virage was designed by Reeves Callaway in Greenwich CT, and the current V8 is basically a ford/jag unit. Aston has a definite history of taking parts from other car companies and bolting them onto their bodies. Lights from VW on the 90's Virage, tons of Volvo bits all over the DB9/S, British Leyland bits all over the old cars.. I digress..
While magic and mystique may work for you, it doesn't for many others who can tell the difference between fact and fiction.
I will have to tell Bez and Co that their hocus pocus is having a lovely effect on some owners. Granted, again, you're entitled to your feelings, however, arguing against fact or logic with feelings is pointless and could be considered insanity by some. Your feelings belong to you, and nobody else, and you're entitled to your feelings. That's factual..
As far as collector car values, and engines built for "that" car. Please tell me that an original Cobra with a production ford 289, or an original Lola T70 with a production GM 350, or a Bizzarini 3500gt with a production GM 350, or a Mc Laren M8 with a GM 350 etc. are cheap/not valuable or undesirable.
That has insanity written all over it. No pun intended. Guess what? The valve cover says powered by ford on that cobra as well as GM on the GM powered other Marques mentioned. The Pagani motor has AMG all over it. Again, just a point of fact that refutes your emotional claim that desirable cars must have engines made by the car manufacturers. You may feel that the cars I mention are undesirable, but there are lots of others will not part with their collections at any price.
Best regards
#49
07-07-2015, 09:50 AM
You sure write a lot of irrelevant/immaterial stuff. Like I care about Ford tri-motors or F1 cars, since they are really related to this issue....NOT.
We keep telling you guys that for car manufacturers without a history of using their own engines, using someone else's in no problem. I don't care what's under the hood of a Pagani, as long as it's good. You might buy a Ferrari without a Ferrari motor, but most others would not since the mystique would be gone forever.
And who cares who designed the engine (or who actually builds it), as long as it is unique to Aston, it is by definition an Aston motor.
We keep telling you guys that for car manufacturers without a history of using their own engines, using someone else's in no problem. I don't care what's under the hood of a Pagani, as long as it's good. You might buy a Ferrari without a Ferrari motor, but most others would not since the mystique would be gone forever.
And who cares who designed the engine (or who actually builds it), as long as it is unique to Aston, it is by definition an Aston motor.
#50
07-07-2015, 12:20 PM
You sure write a lot of irrelevant/immaterial stuff. Like I care about Ford tri-motors or F1 cars, since they are really related to this issue....NOT.
We keep telling you guys that for car manufacturers without a history of using their own engines, using someone else's in no problem. I don't care what's under the hood of a Pagani, as long as it's good. You might buy a Ferrari without a Ferrari motor, but most others would not since the mystique would be gone forever.
And who cares who designed the engine (or who actually builds it), as long as it is unique to Aston, it is by definition an Aston motor.
We keep telling you guys that for car manufacturers without a history of using their own engines, using someone else's in no problem. I don't care what's under the hood of a Pagani, as long as it's good. You might buy a Ferrari without a Ferrari motor, but most others would not since the mystique would be gone forever.
And who cares who designed the engine (or who actually builds it), as long as it is unique to Aston, it is by definition an Aston motor.
Your subjective definition can and may well be considered as irrelevant as your emotional appeal of mystique and magic solely related to the engine.
In the eyes of the current designer Reichmann, the essence of Aston Martin is not defined by its engine. If you disagree so much, maybe you can apply for the lead designer role and make the brand more of a success than it already is without losing as much money as it has as a company.
As I said before, if you feel so strongly about this, please attend the Aston Estate during Monterey Week. I'll be there with Reichmann, Plamer and the others, and we can all see what they think about your oh so charming opinion on engines. It can also be arranged for you to stand on stage with many Aston owners current and future, and have a discussion on this oh so holy grail of a point you are trying to make.
And, yes, I will buy you a beer if you make it.!!
#51
07-07-2015, 01:53 PM
#52
07-07-2015, 03:14 PM
MRY,
You clearly don't know me, but your latest posts reveal quite a lot about you. Your "insanity" comments are arrogant and ignorant, as is your (rather ironic) statement that I have "limited historical knowledge." Your personal attacks have no place on this forum, IMO, and you have now reduced this previously interesting discussion among people with differing opinions to a sadly low level of personal insults supported by your "facts."
And I should be embarrassed, with my limited historical knowledge, because you "corrected" me and stated that Ford made the Trimotor and its engines in the 1920s??? Do you mean those Ford Trimotors that were powered by Wright engines? Or the Ford Trimotors that were powered by Pratt & Whitney engines?
You believe that because boats and planes use outsourced engines that this proves your "facts" are correct and others are insane.
You believe that because F1 car builders generally use engine suppliers that this proves your "facts" are correct and others are insane.
Why didn't you state the "fact" that some clothiers only make suits, but don't make the shirt, belt or shoes one might wear with that suit? Clearly this proves the "fact" that Aston Martin need not ever bother with bespoke engines.
Call me crazy (oh, that's right, you already have), but IMO it's far more important that an Aston Martin has an Aston Martin engine than that it has an Aston Martin window switch.
BTW, Callaway didn’t design the Virage engine (one of your "facts"), he designed new cylinder heads for the Tadek Marek-designed Aston Martin V8 engine. Better not embarrass myself due to my limited knowledge of historical facts...
The current V8 is "basically a Ford/Jag unit…” Yup, right off-the-shelf, just like the new AMG unit might be. Oh, wait, the current Aston engine has its own -- bespoke -- block, crank, bearings, conrods, pistons, rings, valves, cams, heads, oiling system, etc. Yup, just an off-the-shelf Ford/Jag unit...
Let's tell the truth -- I never said cars that don't have bespoke engines aren't valuable, I said the most valuable collector cars are from manufacturers who build their own engines. Ferrari 250 GT California Spider vs Cobra. Ferrari 275 GTB vs Bizzarrini 5300GT (not 3500 as you stated, and it's a Corvette 327, not a 350 -- "limited historical knowledge, don't embarrass yourself," etc.). DB5 vs ISO Grifo. Aston Martin V8 vs Jensen Interceptor. If you want to rebut this with the fact that an MGB is less valuable than the Iso, indulge yourself.
Enjoy your conversation with Bez -- who forced that abomination called the Cygnet on us. In case you've forgotten (likely you agree with him), not only did he say it was a true Aston Martin, he was quoted as saying it's "as authentic" an Aston Martin as a DB5. You can keep your beer, thanks.
You clearly don't know me, but your latest posts reveal quite a lot about you. Your "insanity" comments are arrogant and ignorant, as is your (rather ironic) statement that I have "limited historical knowledge." Your personal attacks have no place on this forum, IMO, and you have now reduced this previously interesting discussion among people with differing opinions to a sadly low level of personal insults supported by your "facts."
And I should be embarrassed, with my limited historical knowledge, because you "corrected" me and stated that Ford made the Trimotor and its engines in the 1920s??? Do you mean those Ford Trimotors that were powered by Wright engines? Or the Ford Trimotors that were powered by Pratt & Whitney engines?
You believe that because boats and planes use outsourced engines that this proves your "facts" are correct and others are insane.
You believe that because F1 car builders generally use engine suppliers that this proves your "facts" are correct and others are insane.
Why didn't you state the "fact" that some clothiers only make suits, but don't make the shirt, belt or shoes one might wear with that suit? Clearly this proves the "fact" that Aston Martin need not ever bother with bespoke engines.
Call me crazy (oh, that's right, you already have), but IMO it's far more important that an Aston Martin has an Aston Martin engine than that it has an Aston Martin window switch.
BTW, Callaway didn’t design the Virage engine (one of your "facts"), he designed new cylinder heads for the Tadek Marek-designed Aston Martin V8 engine. Better not embarrass myself due to my limited knowledge of historical facts...
The current V8 is "basically a Ford/Jag unit…” Yup, right off-the-shelf, just like the new AMG unit might be. Oh, wait, the current Aston engine has its own -- bespoke -- block, crank, bearings, conrods, pistons, rings, valves, cams, heads, oiling system, etc. Yup, just an off-the-shelf Ford/Jag unit...
Let's tell the truth -- I never said cars that don't have bespoke engines aren't valuable, I said the most valuable collector cars are from manufacturers who build their own engines. Ferrari 250 GT California Spider vs Cobra. Ferrari 275 GTB vs Bizzarrini 5300GT (not 3500 as you stated, and it's a Corvette 327, not a 350 -- "limited historical knowledge, don't embarrass yourself," etc.). DB5 vs ISO Grifo. Aston Martin V8 vs Jensen Interceptor. If you want to rebut this with the fact that an MGB is less valuable than the Iso, indulge yourself.
Enjoy your conversation with Bez -- who forced that abomination called the Cygnet on us. In case you've forgotten (likely you agree with him), not only did he say it was a true Aston Martin, he was quoted as saying it's "as authentic" an Aston Martin as a DB5. You can keep your beer, thanks.
Last edited by Speedraser; 07-07-2015 at 06:23 PM.
#53
07-08-2015, 07:52 AM
This thread has obviously gone off topic with no chance of returning. Due to the personal jabs, I'm locking the thread.
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...rum-rules.html
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...rum-rules.html
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post