2016 Model Year Changes
#46
I just don't get what the "Leather - Contemporary" option is. Can we get other interior leather colors now on the GT?! Also "Rear Cabin Leather - Match to Upper?"
The CF wing badges don't look good FYI
And, yes it is also possible to go outside the 5 standard GT exterior colors
The CF wing badges don't look good FYI
And, yes it is also possible to go outside the 5 standard GT exterior colors
I assume the "contemporary option" is the alcantara interior I assume.
I assume, rear cabin leather is referring to the rear parcel shelf which was apparently standard in the past is now an option.
I agree, CF badge does not look as good normally, some contrast is always nice.
#49
MY16 New Fascia?
I just noticed something from @Karl's posting ... It talks about "all-new Vantage Fascia" for new MY16 changes.
Does this mean the Vantage models are getting a minor facelift?
As I'm sure you all know fascia normally refers to everything from the bumper to the grille and headlights...
If true, I am anxious for more details and pictures!
Does this mean the Vantage models are getting a minor facelift?
As I'm sure you all know fascia normally refers to everything from the bumper to the grille and headlights...
If true, I am anxious for more details and pictures!
#50
I just noticed something from @Karl's posting ... It talks about "all-new Vantage Fascia" for new MY16 changes.
Does this mean the Vantage models are getting a minor facelift?
As I'm sure you all know fascia normally refers to everything from the bumper to the grille and headlights...
If true, I am anxious for more details and pictures!
Does this mean the Vantage models are getting a minor facelift?
As I'm sure you all know fascia normally refers to everything from the bumper to the grille and headlights...
If true, I am anxious for more details and pictures!
#56
^^^^ Yes, here's why.
The current dash design is not perfect by any means: the tiny buttons are placed more for symmetry than ergonomics and the small display for the stereo is woefully inadequate.
Yes, the new console looks more "modern". But, I'm not sure I consider it an upgrade; just a different design that is still not ideal.
- Touch controls seem to fail more frequently with age.
- Touch controls are harder to find by touch alone (ironic, I know).
- Touch controls remind me of microwave ovens.
- Touch controls leave fingerprints everywhere and that's not good for my OCD.
- Touch controls require that the nav screen be open for even the most basic stereo functions.
- Opening/closing the nav screen more frequently is more likely to cause the mechanism to fail.
- The nav screen looks a bit ugly when it's open.
The current dash design is not perfect by any means: the tiny buttons are placed more for symmetry than ergonomics and the small display for the stereo is woefully inadequate.
Yes, the new console looks more "modern". But, I'm not sure I consider it an upgrade; just a different design that is still not ideal.
#57
^^^^ Yes, here's why.
The current dash design is not perfect by any means: the tiny buttons are placed more for symmetry than ergonomics and the small display for the stereo is woefully inadequate.
Yes, the new console looks more "modern". But, I'm not sure I consider it an upgrade; just a different design that is still not ideal.
- Touch controls seem to fail more frequently with age.
- Touch controls are harder to find by touch alone (ironic, I know).
- Touch controls remind me of microwave ovens.
- Touch controls leave fingerprints everywhere and that's not good for my OCD.
- Touch controls require that the nav screen be open for even the most basic stereo functions.
- Opening/closing the nav screen more frequently is more likely to cause the mechanism to fail.
- The nav screen looks a bit ugly when it's open.
The current dash design is not perfect by any means: the tiny buttons are placed more for symmetry than ergonomics and the small display for the stereo is woefully inadequate.
Yes, the new console looks more "modern". But, I'm not sure I consider it an upgrade; just a different design that is still not ideal.
Perfect answer- Thank you !
#58
I drove the new C63S with A high performance tune (about 620hp/620tq). It was an absolute monster... But because it is a twin turbo platform, the turbos are tiny and they run out of air on the top end (even with a tune). It's a TOTALLY different powerband. By 5500rpm power is already running out of breath. On a 2wd car you can see how all that torque and not enough high end HP can be problematic.
As great as the engine is, it's just a totally different motor. 2016 will be the last chance to buy a true old school Aston with the NA screamer engine. As amazing as the AMG engine may be, I still would have taken my old 4.3L that screamed to 7700rpm with a 150hp/200tq deficit, there is no comparison.... And that says A LOT.
Putting my order down for my 2016 pretty soon ... It will be the last chance, and go down as a very special year before the interior/exterior/drivetrain change forever.
Last edited by 007 Vantage; 07-11-2015 at 09:57 AM.
#59
^^ Yes, all the emphasis seems to be on turbocharging and low-mid range torque these days. There's something to be said for an engine that needs to be given a good thrashing to extract its performance, at least in a sports car as opposed to a car for the daily grind! Then there's Ferrari, who claim to respect the revs for power equation, by artificially limiting torque/boost at lower revs in their new turbocharged engines... blech.