Vanquish

What do you think about the new Vanquish? Plenty of power, gobs of torque and with AM's classic, sophisticated look. It's got it all....except for a prancing horse :)

----------
"Ferrari isn't a car, it's a lifestyle"
-Enzo Ferrari.

you gotta a pic?
never heard of this car.

http://209.25.185.210/SDBQ?y=2000&m=Aston%20Martin&o=V12%20Vanquish

----------
"Ferrari isn't a car, it's a lifestyle"
-Enzo Ferrari.

Edited by: igor@af

It's not unusual for Ferrari enthusiasts to not understand the understatement of the British Aston Martin. Despite all of the problems that has beset Astons, they have survived. And lets face it - Ferraris are common - Astons are on a much higher plane.

BTW Don't expect to like or understand the Vanquish until the Vantage version appears

Just because I'm a ferrari fan, doesn't mean I don't "understand" Aston. AM has heritage dating back to the early part of the 1900's.

Prestige comes naturally with AM's as well. With only 100 DB7's produced annually, they exhibit quite a power over their sister XK8.

However, to claim they're dominance because they have survived is poor logic. Aston Martin may very well have gone under if it wasn't for Ford's intervention.

But hey, let's not forget that in a showdown against a 360 modena and a Porsche Turbo (C&D?) it came in third! And, let's not forget AM's tardiness in getting the Vanquish to production quality, as there has been yet another delay recently. Granted, the delay came in an attempt to make the car perfect for it's consumers.

----------
"Ferrari isn't a car, it's a lifestyle"
-Enzo Ferrari.

I love the look of that car.

Although it has some wierd photoshop type stuff done.

http://209.25.185.210/images-small/2000_aston_martin_vanquish-1.gif

ţ



----------
The Artist formally known as Ahkmid Lickachicken.
http://psxi.tripod.com

Aston Martin's possess a subtle beauty to them, just as many luxurious European cars do. Mercedes, for example, are by no means flashy, but are still beautiful cars. Same with many Bimmers. Both of these brands (along with many others) possess subtle, trademark styling cues and a masterful use of lines and curves to express themselves. Mercedes has it's ridged taillights and classic C-pillar. BMW's have the distinctive Kidney Grills and round headlights. Such is the case with AM. The grill on the Vanquish is eerily reminiscent of the early DB series, among other similarites.

To generalize "ferrari enthusiasts" as incapable of understanding Aston Martin's subtleness is absurd. This also assumes that AM is on a higher level, which it is not. Ferrari also possesses certain trademark cues (i.e. grills, taillights...), yet Ferrari's styling is overall in your face, aggressive, and clear.

----------
"Ferrari isn't a car, it's a lifestyle"
-Enzo Ferrari.

I love this car. I have been looking at this thing in Automobile Magazine (an older issue) and it is simply amazing!

I love the styling of the car (always liked the retro look of the AMs) the V12 will keep up with pretty much any Porsche on the street. I would probally take it over a Porsche, because I love the styling and the 400 horses that sit under the hood!

Give me an AM over a Porsche and Ferrari :eek:. I like that car a lot, even though it costs way too much money, I would still take it over the Porsche and Ferrari.


But hey, let's not forget that in a showdown against a 360 modena and a Porsche Turbo (C&D?) it came in third!

Well that Aston Martin was the DB7 Vantage. It is a lot slower than the Vanquish that is going to come out. I never liked the DB7s too much because of all their weight. I haev driven one in GranTurismo 2 :p.

One must say how strange and worrying it is for one to read the following sentence:
"Give me an AM over a Porsche and Ferrari"
This goes without saying! If one were in the market for a super car of distinction then one would not be contemplating a Porsche! Certainly a Ferrari but never a Porsche.

Basically the order of desirability should be categorised as thus:

Cat 1: (Brands that have the ultimate status)
Rolls Royce
Bentley
Aston Martin
Ferrari
McClaren

Cat 2: (Brands that have a good status, but not super cars)
TVR
Ascari (Although they do use BMW engines!)
Maserati
Porches (Just, as this seems to be as regular as Boring 3 series BMW's these days)

Cat 3: (Cars that are just too common to be consider and, are by no way super cars)
Lotus
Mercedes
Jaguar
BMW
Audi

I'm sure there are plenty others but I cannot remember at the present time!

Aston Martin Man

Porsches not supercars? Youre kidding! The Vanquish doesnt drive as well as any porsche in the current line up.. porsche in same cat as tvr? what a joke?!?! the boys from Stuttgart have been showing up their Italian rivals for the past decade

Cat 3: (Cars that are just too common to be consider and, are by no way super cars)

i beg to differ...

the Lotus Super 7 is the ultimate Super Car..it was the first in its class to weigh what it does and have the horses..and it can easily take on Vipers and Corvettes and i have seen videos of them beating Ferraris...

And what about the Jaguar XJ220 ?? That is a super car also..ask anyone

and the Mercedes CLK GTR...humm....theres another one

you are talking about the common cars like a BMW 3 series or a Jaguar XType or a Mercedes SLK..yes they are common but when you get up in the higher ranks of HP and tuning..they are the top notch super cars in the buisness...

and BTW the Mclaren has a BMW engine...

The Jaguar XJ220 and Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR prove that you can't define "supercar" by brand name alone.

Ferrari and Lamborghini make nothing but exotic cars (although the 308/328/348 and Dino Ferraris may be exceptions). Maserati, at one point, only made exotics until moving into the Biturbo generation.

Stating that Lotus cars are "by no way super cars" because "they are just too common," shows a lack of knowledge about Lotus cars. Lotus produces far fewer vehicles each year than Porsche and sits closer to Ferrari in annual output.

The definition of a supercar cannot be made on performance alone. Exclusivity alone doesn't do it either.

Rolls-Royce and Bentley are in the luxury car category and should not be lumped in with Aston Martins and Ferraris. While some Porsches may keep up with (or exceed) the performance of an Aston Martin, the combination of performance and exclusivity puts the English cars into the supercar category where the Porsche is not exclusive enough to be placed there as a whole.

The 911 Turbo may fall into the supercar category and the Carrera GT, when it gets here, will definitely. But the 911 line as a whole is built in too large of volume to be called a "supercar".

These are all my opinions of the subject.

Another thing, in my mind, defining a supercar is the need for an exclusive powertrain. While the company may not have to build their own engine, it must not be shared with an unrelated vehicle. McLaren F1s, with their BMW engines, used a specific displacement and tuning unlike any other street car. Lotus (aside from the lowly Elise) has its own V8. Maserati, Ferrari, Lamborghini, and TVR all have their own engines (or specifically tuned versions of existing engines).

To sum up my thoughts, Aston Martin and Porsche do not compete with each other....Aston Martin is on a higher (more exclusive) plane.

To sum up my thoughts, Aston Martin and Porsche do not compete with each other....Aston Martin is on a higher (more exclusive) plane.

I disagree. Porsche is right there at the very top of the automotive pile. An echelon above Ferrari, even. There's something called history, and Porsche has oodles more history than Aston, with the most successful racing record out of any company in the world, yes, better than Ferrari. The 911 is the definitive supercar, the most recognisable. It has prospered when so many others came and died. The company has pushed the envelope when others rested on their laurels. A Porsche does everything a Ferrari does, (admittedly with less flamboyance), and of late it does everything better. The Porsche name is synonymous with speed and desirability. Why are there many around? Cos theyre that good, cos the company's good at making them at affordable prices. For what these cars do they are great VFM. Porsche lets your dream come true when Ferrari keeps it tantalisingly out of reach. Maybe thats the common mistake to make. An Aston is not more prestigious than a Porsche, not to me anyway, not by a long shot. More snooty, yes! Trust me i see the pretentious b*stards driving around in them!

Originally posted by crayzayjay


I disagree. Porsche is right there at the very top of the automotive pile. An echelon above Ferrari, even. There's something called history, and Porsche has oodles more history than Aston, with the most successful racing record out of any company in the world, yes, better than Ferrari. The 911 is the definitive supercar, the most recognisable. It has prospered when so many others came and died. The company has pushed the envelope when others rested on their laurels. A Porsche does everything a Ferrari does, (admittedly with less flamboyance), and of late it does everything better. The Porsche name is synonymous with speed and desirability. Why are there many around? Cos theyre that good, cos the company's good at making them at affordable prices. For what these cars do they are great VFM. Porsche lets your dream come true when Ferrari keeps it tantalisingly out of reach. Maybe thats the common mistake to make. An Aston is not more prestigious than a Porsche, not to me anyway, not by a long shot. More snooty, yes! Trust me i see the pretentious b*stards driving around in them!

Porsche owners are not pretentious? I need not defend my opposition to this...I think anyone can see the problem with this argument.

Porsche has "something called history?" Porsche dates back to 1948...Aston Martin dates back to 1913. Aston Martin has run in many races over the years in nearly every racing series.

Aston Martin has something that Porsche cannot claim: exclusivity. And it's getting worse. Porsche produces around 50,000 cars a year; add in the Cayenne and we'll be counting 75,000 or so. If you were to add in the expected production from the new "volume" model, the Vantange, you STILL can't top 4,000 units a year.

Porsche is a mainstream brand compared to Ferrari and Aston Martin. I'll admit that Porsche has excellent performance, but let's compare the Chevrolet Camaro to Porsche: they were both produced in about the same volume in 2001, the Camaro Z28 SS has performance numbers rivaling the best numbers of non-turbo 911s, and the SS is more exclusive than the 911. So the Camaro is a supercar as well?

I still stand on my opinion that the 911 (non-turbo) is not a supercar and all Aston Martins are.

hehe... dont get me wrong i didnt say Porsche owners are petrolheads each and everyone of them. some buy for the image and some because theyre genuine petrolheads and they want to drive the car. why do people buy Astons? lets have a closer look at that. An Aston. Sounds grand does it not? and thats why people buy an Aston, because its posh, and it looks nice. People want to be associated with that. They want to pose. Why else would you buy an early DB7 when the Jag XK was so much better? the DB7 is far, far from being a supercar. Its a beautiful, beautiful GT. Like the very large majority of Aston's cars. Not supercars.
Even the Vanquish is a flawed supercar.

Aston does date back further than Porsche. Yes. Aston has run in many races, yes. But Porsche has run in probably every race there has been and as i said is the most successful racing marque in the world - bar none. Despite only having been around for half a century.

About the Camaro point, no it most definitely isnt a supercar. Im not the one saying the rarer it is, the more its worthy of the supercar tag, you are. Aston do make fewer cars, yes. But when the new V8 Vantage comes out their production numbers will shoot through the roof. Room will eventually be made for higher production. the new "volume" model will almost definitely be a success, and Ford will want to sell more. So will Aston. Give it a decade and Aston will be making as many cars as Porsche is today. I wonder if Astons will cease to be supercars in your eyes. it wont change a thing for me.

Originally posted by AstonMartin

Cat 1: (Brands that have the ultimate status)
Rolls Royce
Bentley
Aston Martin
Ferrari
McClaren

Cat 2: (Brands that have a good status, but not super cars)
TVR
Ascari (Although they do use BMW engines!)
Maserati
Porches (Just, as this seems to be as regular as Boring 3 series BMW's these days)

Cat 3: (Cars that are just too common to be consider and, are by no way super cars)
Lotus
Mercedes
Jaguar
BMW
Audi

I'm sure there are plenty others but I cannot remember at the present time!

Aston Martin Man

I really like how you categorised them. I think TVR has to be put in the supercar category, even though they are not as commonly heard of as the rest of those in Cat 1. Wait.... Where the hell is Lamborghini?!?!? They should be at the top of Category 1. They are definitely Supercars. Rolls Royce are great for Luxery, but not in the same category as Lambo, Ferrari, Aston, etc. You were on the right track with this post, but I had to point out some faults. ;)

Crayzay:

Like I said, when the Vantage comes out volumes will increase...to about 4,000 units a year! TOTAL ASTON MARTIN PRODUCTION!

That's like one month's production at Porsche BEFORE the addition of the Cayenne!

The DB7, even the early six-cylinders, were in a class above Porsches and above XK8s.

Dude, i got what you said first time, NO NEED TO SCREAM :p

What i was saying is, just as everything in this world, once something becomes a succcess you want more of it. Aston will not be happy to be selling 4,000 a year when they could be selling 10,000. Ford will hold them to that. And that day will come much sooner than you expect.

The early DB7's had switches from a Ford Fiesta! Classy :rolleyes: