Not sure this has been discussed here but does this car resemble similar lines to that of an Aston Martin or is it me? Almost looks most similar to Bond's AM DB10 I think. That said, are some Jaguar's and Aston Martin's still designed by the same person? Damn, I hope this post doesn't offend anybody....not my intent.

 

There's a reason for that... Same designer, Ian Callum.

 

Well said lol.

 

Here's another resemblance comparison of a DB9 and 2006 Jag XK from this blog: notthat1

 

What a crazy resembelence between these two! I had no idea. The DB10 and F-type resembelence is uncanny!

 

Actually, it's only "uncanny" when your reference is limited to photos. In person/on the road they are vastly different. The width and low slung stance of the AM makes it very distinct. I'm not criticizing your point of view, I thought the same thing before I'd seen them in person.

When the first F-type pics showed up, I wondered if AM had just been one upped leaving the next gen Vantage no place to go. I'm not worried about that anymore. The F-type is a pretty car but it's tall and narrow. It was seeing the DB10 during Pebble Beach week that convinced me. It's just so much more sleek than the photos had shown.

None of us know for sure what the next DB will look like and even less the next Vantage. But I'm confident that the F-type will look somewhat clunky and oafish next to them both.

As for the designer, Ian Callum was responsible for the Jags (including the F-type) and for the DB7, DB9 and Vantage. But new gen Aston Martins are not coming from him at all so we should enjoy a nice deviation from the similarity between Jag and Aston. All of that said, I'm not 100% convinced that the new blood at the Aston Martin design studio will be able to bring Callum's level of mastery and jaw descending form execution. But hoping: The Vulcan was pretty cool and the DB10 was much cooler than I'd expected.

 

Nice write up! Nice to hear a POV from someone who has actually seen both.

 

Yes, the F-Type is definitely a clunky design with no redeeming features, but the earlier XKR needs a second glance to identify it from a distance as in this photo, especially if you're not a car enthusiast.

When I picked up my DB9 from servicing a couple months back it was alongside an XK, and while there were similiarities they were night and day.

But on its own the Jag is harder to identify for most members of the public.

 

Agree with much of the above, but the comment that the F type is "tall and narrow" needs a reality check. That may be the subjective impression but here are the facts:

F Type R height 1314 mm, width 1923 mm, ratio 0.683
V12VS height 1250 mm, width 1865 mm, ratio 0.670

Hardly a huge difference. I'm betting there are design factors giving that impression, not the actual math.

I think the F type is a gorgeous design. What makes Aston stand out (and from most other vehicles) for me is the clean, understated look, less is more, so to speak. Simple details like the headlight cutouts, or the curve of the front wings, which somehow look more expensive and elegant than on the competition.

They have been gradually losing this with progressively bling body kits compared to the original DB9 and V8V which were the purest forms, IMO. And ALL their cars still have too much fender gap, which to me is a bizarre design oversight that needs to be addressed on future models.

 

I have to agree with you. The F Type is far from clunky in design and certainly is not tall and narrow. For the money I think the value is there. I'm not about to spend upwards of $50k on a ten year old old Aston Martin. I'd rather put my money into a brand new F Type for the same price which is the way I'm leaning. Certainly, the prestige is no comparison to the Aston Martin and certainly is no exotic but monetarily, the F type for me is a much better value especially, for my checkbook.

 

I should have been clearer: The F-type looks tall and narrow, compared to the low-wide looking Vantage. It's all about impressions provided by the little things the designers do.

As for the metrics, notice that you're only considering the height of the top of the roof. A rather irrelevant measurement in terms of overall, physical impression. The "tall" comes from the proportions from the sill down. The entire engine compartment and quarter panel mass on the F is, compared to a Vantage, brick like. And since all of these subjective words are linked to proportions, I stand by the result being very clearly "tall and narrow" compared to the Vantage front end. Why do I focus on the front end so much? Because it creates the primary proportion for the rest of the car. When you get to the back 1/3, the high arching haunches of the F only serve to reinforce the slab like, tall sides. Now look a the Vantage. It's like a cat, flattening itself before pouncing. The two are so remarkably different the more you study them.

Don't get me wrong, the Jag is a very good looking car. But one real beauty of the Vantage is just how wide and low the front end appears to be. Measurements are totally meaningless when it comes to styling.

And not all styling tweaks to the Vantage since its debut have been bad. Removing the antenna was nice. The S rockers are very nice. The S front end and diffuser are both nice. I personally like the duck tail but I can accept that the original was a more pure form. I'm not even sure what one could call "blingy" about any of the new bits.

Look at the amount of body above the wheel arcs on the F vs the Vantage. F = Tall, Vantage = Low. I think this side by side (literally) really tells the story.




Now look at the overall impression of the front end and the lines it sets up going rearward. The Jag has those high arcing creases at the top of the 1/4 panels and again more, higher arcs over the rear wheels. Look how high that makes the sides of the car compared to the single, low slung line of the Vantage's sill.

 

While I own a Vantage, I was leaning towards being in the camp of saying that the F-Type is a "bang for your buck" clone of the V8V.

However, after reading through this thread, and seeing the pictures, I can totally see a huge difference. The last 2 pictures, showing the 2 cars from the front, really tell a compelling story for the V8V.

 

I have owned both XKR's and the DBS.

Driving wise, the DBS was more solid, but not by a huge margin. The XKR had better technology *by far* than the DBS, and that ain't saying much since the tech on XKR's was getting old. They discontinued the XKR model this model year. DBS *much* more expensive to own and maintain. $3800 for a spark plug change??? $500 for an oil change??? Ridiculous.

The XKR-S was on par with the DBS drive wise and had more torque (yes, drove an XKR-S and almost bought it). V12 produces that orgasmic sound. Comfort went to XKR/XKR-S hands down.

The DB9/DBS looks are just magnificent, sensual, just beautiful. XKR's have a similar look but just don't have the same *depth of beauty*.

I have sat in and inspected the Vanquish. I actually prefer the look of the DBS over the Vanquish. Tech in the Vanquish is still behind cars that cost a third of the price. Hand built? not completely.

Aston is changing their platform, engines, and I hope they modernize their electronics.

Now that I have owned a DBS, I am much more educated on "high dollar" cars.

 

For a moment I thought I preferred the F-type side view to the Vantage side view, but this of course is only a momentary capture in time. On the road in motion it's a different story, and the Aston has a real presence that reflects all the careful sculpting of the designer's craft.

The guy in this video road test talks about Aston's division of thirds in the Vanquish design which probably describes some of the magic which makes up the distinctive look of the brand. Some of his measurements may be stretched a bit to make a point, but I believe the basic theory is on the button.

 

I've studied the DBS a lot to find out what makes it look slightly better than the DB9, and I believe some of the effect is 20" wheels rather than 19's on older DB models such as my DB9. The bigger wheels give a better overall balance to the long body. Amazing how the little things add up.