I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but it’s that kind of “hyperbole” that leads to a general notion that the V8V is “slow,” “lacks performance,”" trades only on its looks," etc. This is getting quite frustrating – because it’s untrue and grossly undersells the Vantage’s performance and credibility as a worthy driver’s car. The 4.3 V8V has a reputation for being slow, which it’s not, although it is obviously not the quickest car of its type. When the 4.7 was introduced, it was rightly hailed as being “as quick as the V8V should always have been” and it basically erased the notion that the V8V was something less than a credible performer. Now, some of these not-fast-enough allegations are being aimed at the 4.7 also. I hear how even the 4.7 “doesn’t have the power” of a 997S or an R8 (or is slower than an X5), and it’s just not true. A 4.7 V8V is every bit as quick as an 8-cyl R8 and runs right with a 997S. Yes, those two cars will be a little quicker around a track, but these are primarily road cars, where that little bit of extra track performance doesn’t matter at all. A Sports Pack-equipped V8V is a brilliant-handling car.

As you noted, the MT 4.7 Coupe did its very impressive acceleration figures on its first run, and the driver thought it was capable of even better figures. Yes, then the gear lever broke. This is the ONLY reported failure I’ve seen in all of the V8V road tests I’ve read, and I’ve read every one I can find written in English since the car was introduced. I’ve also read about many other cars having something break during the very abusive performance testing, such as Porsche 911s breaking driveshafts and early GT-Rs breaking when launch control was used. V8V Roadsters have been recorded at 4.3 seconds to 60, and the Roadster is approx. 200 lbs heavier than the Coupe.

I’ve seen ¼ mile speeds for the 4.3 between 105 and 108, so the 107 you say your modified X5 should run is, as I said, about the same. The 4.7 is significantly quicker at 112 - 115. Also, unless drag racing from a standing start is your thing (fair game if it is), the AWD gives a huge advantage off the line – which is pointless except from a max-attack launch from a standing start. Once rolling, the stock 4.3 is quicker, and again the 4.7 is a lot quicker. Personally, I would never do a drop-the-clutch high-rev launch on a car – I have too much mechanical sympathy for that.

An X5M has 555 hp, so if a track is fast and open enough, it will produce a very impressive lap time, and it doesn’t shock me that it could get close to a “mere” 500 hp M6 under certain circumstances where that horsepower can really show itself. I think we should compare convertibles to convertibles, and coupes to coupes – would an M6 convertible be faster than a V8V Roadster 4.7? It probably depends on the track. The Aston is significantly lighter than the M6, as well as (IMO) far more tactile and involving, at least until the speeds get silly high.

Did your V8 have the Sports Pack? I haven’t owned an X5, but I’ve driven many miles in one, and it's impressive. Also, I’ve driven a Cayenne GTS fairly extensively -- it's not my thing, personally, but its handling is seriously impressive "for such a tall, heavy vehicle." Impressive though they are, IMO my V8V’s (Coupe with Sports Pack) handling is in a completely different league. At cornering speeds far above 50, its handling remains precise and beautifully balanced.

My point is that Astons are more than just pretty – they are competitive in their segments (not the fastest, but competitive). We need to remember that a 599 is much more expensive than a DBS. We don’t know how much the “310” will be yet, but it will apparently have 573 hp. Personally, I think the F12 with its 730 hp has gone past the point of being useable and these sorts of enormous outputs have gotten pretty pointless. The focus should be on lighter weight (yes, some attention is finally being placed there), not ever more massive jumps in horsepower. Does anyone think the 599 wasn’t extremely fast?

BTW, Dr. Bez did some wonderful things for Aston, but I think he’s completely lost his mind (Cygnet ). Some of the things he has said about “brands” and marketing are terrifying.

 

One must never forget that it was Bez that took Porsche into the 993 era. He is merely using the model that made Porsche more appealing to the masses. It also, however, was the model that took Porsche from an exclusive marque to one more accessible to the masses - and in the process watered it down.

 

Do you mean the 996 (and 986)? Bez was the chief engineer when the 993 was being developed, but the 993 was the last of the air-cooled Porsches and was still beautifully built, and in small numbers. The 996/986 was the big change -- far cheaper to build (all too obviously) and built in far greater numbers.

 

You're correct, but it started with the 993 series being split into more variants (an approach we're now seeing with the Vantage, Vantage S, V12 Vantage). In Porsche terms this would be almost the same as the Carrera, Carrera S and Turbo models. Some press reports likens the Vantage S to the GT3, but having driven the GT3 I really don't see it as a true parallel.

I should have been more specific - the 996 series and the 986 were where the beginning of a multi-model approach revealed itself to the public eye.

 

I suppose so, although I think this proliferation really accelerated with the 996. Even in the early '70s a 911 could be had in T, E, S, and Carrera RS versions. For me, the 996 really marked the turning point toward a vastly larger market, and a massive drop in build quality. I truly hope Bez does not go too far down that same path -- I simply don't find Porsches as special as they used to be, and I'd hate to see that happen to Aston Martin.

I agree that the Vantage S is not a comparable model to the GT3 -- if any Vantage is, it's the V12V.

 

Is it fair to characterize the 4.3 as slow? Well, yes, no, and maybe. It really depends on what you are comparing to. When you are in this class, and considered by most to be an exotic, the expectations go up quite a bit.

No - Not compared to "regular cars." No one would think the 4.3 is slow compared to a 4 cylinder Accord or Camry, but these would hardly be comparable cars. When the car is in its power band (5000+ rpm), it feels quick and the amazing sound adds to the experience.

Yes - Compared to its competitors. Forget the 997TT, R8, any Ferrari, any Lambo, GTR, GT3, or Bentley. Forget any Mercedes xx63/55 or even x550. Forget the 997S. It's slower than the regular 997 and the M3/C63/RS4, and probably more on par with the Cayman/Boxster or E46 M3. Those are great cars, but cost 1/2 as much (at the time). In this price range, there are performance expectations, and the 4.3 was slow by comparison. When it is not in its power band, off the line, or when in the wrong gear it can feel sluggish. I used to call it the "dead zone" where nothing really happened until it got over 5000 rpm.

Maybe - There are lots of cheaper cars that would not be considered competitors that are as fast or faster...any Corvette, Mustang GT (especially 5.0 and of course GT500), BMW 135i and 335i, CTS-V, Nissan 350Z and 370Z, etc. Those are cars that cost 1/4 as much.

So honestly, I think the reputation was deserved. Is it a great car otherwise? Of course..best looking car out there, sounds amazing, feels special, nice materials, etc.

How about the 4.7? Is it slow? No, but for all the reasons above it still underperforms. Sorry, but it is not as fast as the 997S (much less the 991S as the article shows). It is more comparable to the E92 M3, which probably also beats it in most situations. Slow? No. But relatively speaking it doesn't perform as well as its competitors, or as well as many cheaper cars. Performance matters in a sports car.

The point is that Bez, IMO, really needs to do something here to improve this. You can only get by on the pretty looks for so long before people start to look at other options. It's a competitive market and the performance expectations at this price point are very high. It's a great brand...I'd like to see them do better.

 

There is an inherent problem in doing that for the current range. Many argue that our cars are some of the most beautiful in the world. I've read on the forums that the new model doesn't appear as beautiful as the current range to many people. In order for the performance to be significantly increased, there needs to be some degree of exterior design change to go with it. Imagine that you just purchased a V12V and then AM comes up with a way to make the V8V compete on a performance level with other marques - and it possibly outperforms or comes really close to the V12V in the process. This would be somewhat problematic for those who just purchased a V12V. Granted they did it with the 4.3 to the 4.7, but to keep up with the other brands on a performance level there is a lot more to think about at the corporate level than just increasing power output with the current designs.

Bez talks about design evolution vs. complete redesigns. Sounds very similar to what Porsche does and it could work, but to make a serious jump in power in a short amount of time may leave current owners with a bit of remorse.

 

Since I have owned my Aston, I pay less attention to driving statistics than I used to, and for good reason.

 

Performance stats = 99% d*ck-waving, and 1% relevance.

 

Actually I don't think it would be hard at all. Do what everyone else does and start at the top of the lineup and let the technology trickle down to the other cars. I'm not in any way affiliated with the auto industry and I know this. The One-77 is a good start, now they just need to utilize some of this R&D in other cars. The 7.3L V12 isn't likely to make it to the other cars, though, so for max impact, efficiency, and cost, some form of forced induction is the best bet. Bez has said he wants AM to be an "engine company," yet engines are the biggest (relative) weakness in the cars.

Across the range (not including cygnet here), they can prop up performance with an in-house supercharger kit which would be retrofittable...I've been saying this for years. It would provide them extra profit and add significant performance, while improving their image. The 'S' models should really make more than 10 extra hp. That's ridiculous. They should make the S models the supercharged versions with a minimum of 500 hp for the V8 and 600 hp for the V12.

 

I would 100% buy a supercharger kit if it were offered directly from AM as a dealer installed option. I seriouly doubt this would ever happen, but it's nice to dream.

 

Lhand and spinecho,
I agree, the numbers shouldn’t be that important, not because performance doesn’t matter (it does, as Tahoe said) but because all of these cars are fast – the “slowest” 4.3 V8V is a 175 mph car. That some are a bit faster than others shouldn’t be so important IMO, when there are so many other characteristics and attributes to consider.

That said, the too-pervasive notion that the Vantage is lacking in performance can be largely shown to be false by citing those numbers. The notion that these cars are great looking but not great to drive – often translated as “slow” – is worth rebutting.

Tahoe,
You say that, compared to its competitors, the V8V “underperforms.” Why do you list the 997 Turbo, rather than the 997/997S, as the competitor? Because the price is similar to a V8V’s? If that’s the case, then why do you list Lambos and Ferraris as competitors? They’re far more expensive. Performance for the price is always an argument that can be made, and it can be leveled at so many cars. The is always something cheaper and faster. Porsche drivers should be driving Corvettes (Z06 & ZR1 especially) or GT-Rs if all that matters are the performance figures. But people still buy Porsches, pointing out various attributes to justify why they didn’t buy a 638 hp ZR1 for the same price as a well-equipped but much slower 991S. Similarly, this applies to Aston vs. Porsche (or whatever) – an Aston’s rarity, quality of materials, attention to detail, etc. – offer so much more than another tenth of a second (on a road car, at least). The money has to go somewhere – if one can buy a faster Mustang for less money, and that extra speed is the priority, then do it and enjoy. That doesn’t make the Aston slow.

Speaking of competitors, you referenced far more expensive Ferraris and Lambos, but what about the Maserati GranTurismo? The Maser is bigger and seats 4, but it is very similarly priced to the V8V, and similarly exotic (though I think the Aston’s build quality and materials quality are better). The Aston is clearly the better performer (the 4.3 V8V is quicker than the 4.2 Maser GT, and the 4.7 V8V is quicker than the 4.7 Maser GT-S).

A 4.3 needs to be revved – that doesn’t make it slow either, you just have to work at it. Of course, some people don’t want to have to work at it, they want big torque. I like torque, too. Nonetheless, it is clearly faster than a Boxster/Cayman, and at least as quick or quicker than the S versions. It’s very close to a (non-S) 997.1 Carrera (for which the only figures I could find showed 109 mph through the ¼ mile).

We may well continue to disagree, but IMO the 4.7 simply does not “underperform.” It isn’t the quickest car in its class, but the R8 V8 is widely regarded as fast, and the 4.7 V8V is at least quick. The R8 runs about 112 – 113 through the ¼ mile. The V8V is quicker than the first generation 997S, based on various magazine tests. MT ran a 997.1S to 60 in 4.3 seconds, and ran the ¼ mile in 12.6 @ 112.3. C&D tested a 997.1 C4S (heavier, but even better off the line) and did 0-100 in10.2, 12.8 @ 111 through ¼ mile.) And the Gen 2 997? A 997.2S, with a manual ‘box, in C&D’s test, did 3.9 to 60, and ran 114 through the ¼ mile. MT’s PDK-equipped 997 GTS ran the ¼ mile at 113.4, while C&D’s similar car went through the traps at 110. The V8V has done 0-60 in 4.1 to 4.3 (Coupes, which is what all of these figures refer to for the R8 and 997) and runs 112 – 115 in the ¼ mile. These comparative numbers don't show the V8V as an "underperformer." Not bad for a front-engine/rear-drive only car without all the weight of an engine over its rear wheels making for a super-quick launch.

As for the 991S… It’s brand new, and seriously quick (as would be expected of a just-launched new 911), but comparing manual ‘box cars the difference is not as huge as people are saying. The only instrumented test of a manual 991S I’ve seen so far (from InsideLine) shows a ¼ mile in 12.7 @ 113.2. I thought it would be quicker too… FWIW, they tested a PDK car also, and did it in 12.0 @ 116.5. BTW, I read that a Porsche engineer was quoted as saying that more women are buying 911s and they want their cars to be able to park themselves, and that this is a major reason behind the 991’s electric power steering. Hmm, a 911 that prioritizes being able to park itself over steering feel and driver involvement. If this is true, as a long-term Porsche owner, how terribly sad…

As you said, performance does matter, and this is my point -- the V8V 4.7 performs. You get competitive performance (if not class leading) plus all of the things that make an Aston a very special thing.

This doesn't mean that I don't want to see improvements. But all of this talk about a lack of performance undermines a great car and seriously understates how good a performance car the 4.7 V8V actually is. I ran my car briefly (rolling start) against a guy in a 997.2S and stayed right with him (both manual cars). He said, “wow, thought I'd leave you behind.” He was really surprised. He shouldn't have been.

 

This past weekend I had a friend of mine drive the Vantage S. He was impressed with the handling of the car and also commented on the brakes. When I told him he car had 430hp his reply was "that's all?" implying it felt like it had more power. Mind you, this was from a 997TT driver who has done the Porsche driving experience.

This was at an enthusiasts meet with Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Porsches, etc. there was also an original M1 there, the first I've ever seen in person (very cool). The car drew many admirers and also received many comments about how beautiful it was. Of course we knew that already

 

I can't comment on the 4.7 because I haven't owned one, but I have owned a 4.3. It's not just a matter of having to "work at it" with the 4.3. It's more like you have to wait for it, which was really frustrating to me. Yes, it would rev quickly once you were up around 4500 rpm, but until then it there's mostly a lot of noise. I remember one time where I was competing with a sporty Japanese 4 cylinder (not sure which one) for a lane on an on-ramp to the highway. I eventually won in the end (it was a long on-ramp), but it was close and really shouldn't have been. The car does lack torque (as all the reviews point out) and this in large part was the motivation for Aston to go to the 4.7, which increased torque by nearly 15%.

 

played with the following with my 4.3
996TT - 50-130 started at 3rd gear was 1.5 car behind
G37S - 50-110 started at 4th and was 2 car ahead
E39 M5 - 0-120 dead even

Note to myself: be in the right gear