http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/co...ntage-roadster

Have not read it yet . . . first impression at the title is that this should be a comparison of the the AMV8S and the C2S, or a base C2 with the std V8.

 

Just read it, a very balanced review. The Porsche is much faster and that 1.02Gs is insane.

The AMV8 is no slouch in the performance department but that's not it's primary mission and, refreshingly, R&T seems to get that.

 

Since subscribing to CAR magazine Road and Track just doesn't do it for me anymore... and I've been a subscriber since the 70's. Same thing with Autoweek, which should be re-named Autobimonthly!
The article is fair and balanced though albeit brief. I can't say we're dealing with an apples to apples comparison. I had a 911 and was happy to see it go when the lease was up. Despite being a used 5 year old Vantage, I really just still love the thing. Sure I'd love to have the V12 but that can wait till next year when I can afford it.

 

Shawn, I agree - the Vantage S would have been a better choice. I recently did a run with some of the guys from Rennlist and the S held its own nicely. Handling was nothing short of superb and for the first time in a while I had no white knuckle moments driving at spritied speeds on twisty mountain roads - the car maintained its composure throughout the run.

 

If you want to read real automotive journalism, pick up a copy of Evo. The iPad version is phenomenal.

 

$32K list of options on the 911!!

 

+1 for evo. I actually get it delivered, and I visit their website from time to time.

 

I'm a big fan of the EVO iPad edition. It really is what all digital editions should be, plus it's cheaper and arrives long before the print.

The 991 does not do it for me, I prefer the 997. The current batch of 991 cars seem to be too plush for the Porsche brand.

 

Even after 5 years, nothing looks better than the Vantage. I'd say that was a pretty fair comparison. They give credit where credit is due...looks, sound, feel. Too bad it's still slower than my SUV.

 

I laughed out loud when I read this! I sent them a note when they changed their format saying they should rename the magazine "Auto-every-other-week". Of course, they didn't respond.

 

Not when there are curves involved.

 

True, although I'd bet it would be surprisingly close. The handling of the X5 is impressive for such a tall, heavy vehicle.

 

Good to see some of the things that make an Aston truly special get some recognition.

FWIW, the R&T test shows the slowest (least quick?) figures for any 4.7 V8V I've seen (the quickest was MT's manual '09 Coupe; 4.1 to 60, 9.98 to 100, 12.5 @ 115 1/4 mile). There would be less of a gap for the manual 'box V8V vs. 991 -- no question the PDK shifts faster than the Aston's SportShift II. This is especially true since the test 991 had PDK with SportChrono, which Porsche says is worth 0.4 secs in the 0-60 run compared to a manual 991 (and obviously a few mph through the 1/4 mile).

I concur regarding the British magazines -- they are SO MUCH BETTER than the American mags that comparing them is absurd. CAR is great, and EVO is even better.

Tahoe, about your SUV claim... I did a little research and found some figures for a Stage 2 version of your SUV, which I would guess is faster than your Stage 1 (correct me if I'm wrong). According to those figures, even the Stage 2 Dinan X5 is NOT as quick as R&T's "slow" 4.7 V8V. On a forum and a thread you posted in, the Stage 2's 1/4 mile runs are in the 105 - 107 mph range -- these are stock 4.3 V8V figures. And in the twisties, "impressive" as the X5 is for "such a tall, heavy vehicle," it wouldn't see where a V8V went.

 

Well that was meant as a bit of hyperbole, but I will defend and qualify my statements.

I haven't run a 1/4 in the current X5, but from what I've seen others run, it should go about 12.8 @107. That's quite a bit faster than the 4.3 Vantage which has been tested to run 13.6-14.2@105 (and one outlier of 13.1@109 which I don't think was ever repeated). FWIW the Stage 2 Dinan has 5 more hp than the Stage 1, the difference is only in getting the turbos to spool up earlier in normal driving. I'd expect the difference on the track to be very small.

The '09 that MT tested 0-60 in 4.1 was a 6-speed coupe (the article here that we are referencing is on a sport-shift convertible), and it ran that on its first run. And then it broke. They tried to test a sport shift model but couldn't launch it. The other tests of sport-shift convertibles pegged the 0-60 right at 4.5 seconds. In my experience with a Vantage for 3 yrs, it was very tough to get off the line cleanly. In comparison, the X5 is easy...brake load the turbos to about 2000 rpm and then let it go...it will launch so hard off the line that your vision will blur. Really. Off the line a Vantage would be playing catch-up. Eventually it would, though, due to better power-to-weight and aerodynamics making up for the advantage of AWD and turbos off the line. In a standing start race, I'd bet my X5 would beat a Vantage convertible sport-shift to at least 80 pretty much every time. Above that, the advantage would start to shift towards the Vantage.

In handling, I still think it would be closer than you think. For example, in the X5, I can take 180 degree off-ramps at 60 with no problems...stable as can be. In the Vantage, if I pushed it above 50 it would get really twitchy and loose.The X5 is surprisingly nimble and transitions well, and when I had both X5M and (supercharged) Vantage at the same time I felt that the X5 was more confidence-inspiring and much faster off the line, mostly due to better traction. I have no direct track comparisons. However, the Lightning Lap test of the X5M put it just 1.1 seconds behind an M6 (on a 3 minute lap of VIR), and I'm pretty sure an M6 would easily beat a 4.7 Vantage convertible sport-shift on that same track...likely by a lot more than 1.1 seconds. The AWD system on the X5 helps it put the power down very well. Would my X5 be faster than a Vantage convertible 4.7 sport-shift in the twisties? Probably not, but it would be pretty close. And that's on a dry road. In the rain or on even a damp road (like here in Florida almost every day), the advantage shifts significantly towards the X5.

Again, the point for me always is that I wish AM would stop drinking the BezAid and make these cars perform as well as they look. They need to be competitive in their segments, more than just being pretty and sounding great. For the upcoming DBS replacement (the Vanquish), I hope they do something to narrow the hp gap with their Ferrari competitor from 220 hp to under 100, otherwise it will be embarrassing.

 

Can this be right?

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Aston-M...mph-Times.html

0-60 in 3.9 for the Vantage S? Mine certainly doesn't feel that quick.