Jeremy Clarkson on the Aston Martin V8 Vantage

[SL65]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Clarkson

Eventually there will be a faster version called the Vantage Vantage probably, or the Vantage Squared, but for now, when you change down and pull out to overtake, the baby Aston accelerates briskly but with none of the savagery you might have been expecting. It’s fast. But it’s not blistering.

The engine starts out in life as a 4.2 litre Jaguar V8 but is then extensively reworked to become a 4.3 that churns out 380bhp and 302 torques. This isn’t enough. It’s less torque than you get from a Mercedes SLK, less bhp and torque than you get from a Vauxhall Monaro. And more worryingly it’s less bhp and torque than you’ll get from the next Jaguar XK, which will be cheaper as well. And just as beautiful.

Thats quite dissapointing dont you think? I would take the Jag if it meant keeping the wallet in one piece.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Clarkson

But put your foot down and a little valve in the exhaust system changes everything. Under full-bore acceleration, this car doesn’t rumble or howl. It sounds like all the most exciting bits of the Bible. It sounds like Revelation.

Hard to believe considering the engine but from what I'v heard in the media, it sounds like a Grand Sport GT and that sounds awesome!!

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...3736_1,00.html

Pretty good review I think. Reading it almost makes me feel as-if im reading a script for Top Gear itself because he communicates his thoughts in that very unique way even in the newspaper.

[flyingfridge]

I'm dissapointed a bit, maybe a quiet mod industry will open up. I don't think Aston has an aftermarket tuner like RUF or Brabus. Maybe this will encourage one? Even if the pace is a little underwhelming, it's still the best looking car on the road.

[bone]

what's wrong with this thread?
http://forum.finalgear.com/viewtopic...914&highlight=

[SL65]

Originally Posted by flyingfridge

I'm dissapointed a bit, maybe a quiet mod industry will open up. I don't think Aston has an aftermarket tuner like RUF or Brabus. Maybe this will encourage one? Even if the pace is a little underwhelming, it's still the best looking car on the road.

Oh yeh that would be great. Hamann do some great kits for Lambos and Ferraris. They would suit Astons well I think

Originally Posted by bone

what's wrong with this thread?
http://forum.finalgear.com/viewtopic...914&highlight=

...Hmmm...dang your right there is another thread but not directly relating to the same article. So if you want to discuss Jeremy's article for the Times, go ahead right here hoping it doesnt get locked

[Z Draci]

My 240Z will have the same amount of torque as that car! And I'm pretty sure my car will accelerate and handle better as well (since it is 500kg lighter).

The V8 Vantage is a very appealling car. I would take it over a Carrera or XK. However, its not very special except that it's an Aston Martin. I think you're just paying for the brand name but not getting 100% of what you pay for.

Oh well . . . Astons were never a brilliant performer. Its looks drew in crowds and its decent performance kept them entertained.

I liked the Times article better than TGM's. Jeremy makes his point very clear, but I have no idea why the Olympics in London has anything to do with it.

[Buba]

I tell you one thing: Its fuckin fast on a track!
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/1913/file09614xo.jpg *stolen from JW*

Its german, but what it says is, its 2 seconds faster round the Nordschleife than a Carrera S... And 13 sec faster than a DB9

At least, if its fitted with the optional Corsa tires...

Buba

[Z Draci]

Why do Germans always get a hold of the interesting technical articles?
[flashes back to Jezza's Carrera GT segment]

[flyingfridge]

* wishes he could read German...

but I have no idea why the Olympics in London has anything to do with it.

Since when do any of Jeremy's Times articles start with anything to do with the car he's reviewing?

[Buba]

Well, basically they say its an awesome car, but they also noticed the shortfall in performance, since it didn't fullfill the 5 sec 0-60 time, it did 5,5...
0-125-0 takes 23,9 sec. -> 0.8 seconds slower than a standard M3

The optional tires make 10 sec difference on the Nordschleife. With them it can generate 1,3 G...

Its supposed to sound simply amazing, just as Jezza said.

Buba

[Cruzz563]

When he said that it was gonna be less than the new Jag XK did he mean the supercharged version because the NA 4.2 is less I believe.

[Janus]

Originally Posted by flyingfridge

Since when do any of Jeremy's Times articles start with anything to do with the car he's reviewing?

Yeah, that is starting to annoy me to be quite honest. I want to hear about the car....not 3/4 of it be a rant on some pointless totally non-related topic. It is like he does it to pan out the number of words he needs.

And speaking of which, is it just me, or are all reviews of this car the same. All of them follow the patten of:

- Say you wanted to drive the car
- Drive the car and compare it to the 911
- Say it is not as good technically as the 911
- Turn around right at the end and say how although it is not as good technically as the 911 you still think it is the better car because it is pretty and has an Aston badge on it.

It is like they all follow the same forumla.

Don't get me wrong I agree with them. As I've mentioned in several threads, I plan to get one even though I know it isn't technically as good as the 911. I just wish they would come up with something a little different to say.

[flyingfridge]

Originally Posted by Janus

Yeah, that is starting to annoy me to be quite honest. I want to hear about the car....not 3/4 of it be a rant on some pointless totally non-related topic. It is like he does it to pan out the number of words he needs.

Personally, I like Clarkson's rants. It's a different approach to the car review. If u want to just read a car review, you can go to Edmunds or TopGear. It's different, and, I think, that's the point.

[watto]

Originally Posted by flyingfridge

Personally, I like Clarkson's rants. It's a different approach to the car review. If u want to just read a car review, you can go to Edmunds or TopGear. It's different, and, I think, that's the point.

I agree. There are some damn boring car reviews going around. It's always nice to see the lighter side of motoring journalism when reading JC's Times reviews. Although he does off track at the start, he always comes to a solid conclusion. I like them, very entertaining.

[Janus]

There are some damn boring car reviews going around. It's always nice to see the lighter side of motoring journalism

I agree with you....when his rants are about the car, or at least something to do with motoring.

Usually he goes on and on about nothing to do with it and then just goes "oh yeah, I also drove the new Porsche this week" and will then spend the last part of the article actually talking about the car and will never mention it again.

I mean it is okay for his editorial articles (I have books of them), but when he is meant to be actually reviewing a car I don't really want to read most of it on unrelated current affairs issues.

It can just get a bit boring and bland time after time.

Like on Top Gear whenever he does something he always says half a sentence....pauses for a second....then ends it with a little accent or something.

Such as "the SLR isn't a good car....it's a GREAT car".

If you know what I mean.

[flyingfridge]

^^ I know that you mean, I just don't agree with you.