On the heels of Norton- Aston Martin saved, for now

[3macboys]

Just saw this story:

 

https://windsorstar.com/pmn/business-pmn/aston-martins-lifeline-buys-carmaker-time-as-suv-hits-road/wcm/083a79ce-d250-4b68-9744-98870fe878f6

[1939_Buick]

Another new link

https://www.caradvice.com.au/823242/aston-martin-secures-financial-lifeline-shakes-up-model-plans/

 

Quote

 

Aston Martin has secured £500 million ($967 million) in new funding to help see it through its current "challenging trading conditions".

Overnight the automaker confirmed a group of investors, led by Canadian billionaire Lawrence Stroll, will purchase a new allotment of shares for £182 million ($352 million), giving them a 16.7 per cent stake in the company.

After Aston Martin publishes its preliminary financial results for 2019, it will launch a new rights issue supported by existing major shareholders and Stroll's consortium. This will see Stroll's stake in the luxury car maker rise to around 20 per cent, and a further £318 million ($615 million) pumped into the struggling firm.

As part of the deal announced overnight, Stroll will become chairman of Aston Martin and have the ability to name a further board member.

Aston Martin's board voted for Stroll ahead of a rival bid from Chinese car maker Geely, which was also reportedly looking to secure a technical partnership to help its Lotus subsidiary.

 

Changes

Stroll owns a controlling stake in the Racing Point Formula One team. Aston Martin will gain a stake in the outfit, and it will be rebranded as Aston Martin F1 from the 2021 season.

With the F1 season due to kick off in March in Melbourne, Aston Martin will continue its sponsorship with the Red Bull team for this year.

<snip>

 

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by 1939_Buick (see edit history)

[TerryB]

I should order mine now😀.  I was working on a DB4 this week, in 1:43 scale of course.  And a Citroen DS19 and a Maserati 250F. All vintage Dinky and Corgi cars.  Those I can afford.

[Matt Harwood]

Oh thank God, another sports car maker investing their future in a luxury truck. 

[3macboys]

3 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

Oh thank God, another sports car maker investing their future in a luxury truck. 

Or is it a tall wagon?  Either way seems wrong

[TerryB]

3 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

Oh thank God, another sports car maker investing their future in a luxury truck. 

Yes, we are running low on choices in that segment of the market.  Has to be one of the most disappointing times for automobile enthusiasts.  

[8E45E]

On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2020 at 5:53 PM, TerryB said:

Yes, we are running low on choices in that segment of the market.  Has to be one of the most disappointing times for automobile enthusiasts.  

Porsche proved all the naysayers wrong when they came out with the Cayenne in 2003.  It will no doubt be one of Porsche's biggest success stories of the 21st century as sales of it exceeded nearly everyone's expectations, including their own.

 

But if you're in business, you'll be forced to go where the market is.

 

Craig

Edited February 24, 2020 by 8E45E (see edit history)

[joe_padavano]

38 minutes ago, 8E45E said:

Porsche proved all the naysayers wrong when they came out with the Cayenne in 2003.  It will no doubt be one of Porsche's biggest success stories of the 21st century as sales of it exceeded nearly everyone's expectations, including their own.

 

But if you're in business, you'll be forced to go where the market is.

 

Craig

 

Sadly, this is exactly the case. I don't understand the attraction of SUVs, but the buying public can't get enough of them. I travel a lot for work and drive a lot of rental cars. While these are obviously not high-end cars, the SUVs just ride like crap. My ancient crewcab dually rides better (likely due to the longer wheelbase). Why do people want these? It's not like they are ever going to take them off road.

[Walt G]

To me the SUV became popular as an alternative to a mini van. The station wagon body style evaporated when the minivan took over to haul people and goods, but there was always a way to order a sporty station wagon so it just didn't give the impression as something to haul groceries and kids in. A car with more room was obviously in demand to transport a couple to events where they also needed more space to haul even several bags of luggage that a trunk in the current 2 or 4 door cars couldn't. The 4WD factor came in because someone at the auto companies saw something they thought would apply - "sport utility" for the utility you needed 4WD to make it different from a station wagon. Truck chassis based 'suburbans' ( that was the first name for a station wagon once name depot hack fell out of favor in the mid 1920s) came into being because the large station wagons were not being made so - again - you bought what had the space you needed even if it was on a larger truck chassis.

[39BuickEight]

SUV's are infinitely easier to get in and out of, like cars were before they were lowered to the ground.  Plus many get the same mpgs as cars, so that drawback is no longer there.

 

Cars have gotten lower and lower over time.

Edited February 24, 2020 by 39BuickEight (see edit history)

[8E45E]

Back in the 1980's I saw a 1950 or '51 Nash Airflyte following a first-gen Dodge T115 minivan.  I was rather amazed how close in dimension the passenger & cargo area was between the two aside from the more sloped rear on the Airflyte.  The main difference of course, was the longer hood on the Nash.

 

Craig

[padgett]

Is interesting but have seen the cycle many times. When I bought my Grand Cherokee in early '12 it was one of many on the dealer's lot so had choice of color, powertrain, and options. Also got every discount  and rebate possible. Was less than a grand more than an '11 with 20k miles. No-braner. Is a keeper.

 

Was at the start of the hp wars that have gotten silly and for interstate driving in a normal car you cannot see what is in front. So for the moment SUVs are in. Do think some of the makes trying to get in is funny. And reminds me of the GM exec (Wagoner ?) that said the reason they built big cars was that was where the profit was. Bankruptcy soon followed.

 

Have memories of a big Jeep Wagoneer flying through the Michigan woods in the POR. Now that mine has a Mercedes chassis and transmission & a DOHC-6 I am not surprised that the lemmings are jumping on. Wonder how many will be happy. Reminds me of the Hummer at the end of Cars.

[Bloo]

On 2/1/2020 at 4:48 PM, Matt Harwood said:

Oh thank God, another sports car maker investing their future in a luxury truck. 

 

I blame Porsche. They started it.

 

[hidden_hunter]

I test drove an X3 on the weekend, it drove pretty much the same as my 1 series hatchback for regular driving - but was considerably quicker 

[mike6024]

Improvements have ruined the product

[Bhigdog]

9 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

I don't understand the attraction of SUVs,

 

I have my second Grand Cherokee (after a number of Durangos). It rides great. Makes child's play out of my 700' uphill drive way in the snow. Hauls my two hounds around with out having them on the upholstery. Lots of room for my camping gear. Carries my two hang gliders on the factory provided roof racks. Sits me well above the Hoi Polli in their BMWs and Hondas. Hauls my wife"s horse feed ( along with her fat ass). We can get in and out of it without feeling like it's a sunken bath tub. When we unload cargo it doesn't have to lifted UP and OUT of what's jokingly called a trunk. We just slide it out into our arms or a wheel barrow. Saves our aging backs. Gets good mileage............ And, it looks like it means it.

So what exactly is it you don't you understand? Just askin...................Bob

Edited February 24, 2020 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[padgett]

Over on some other forums, it is often surprising how many people's "other" car is a late (2011-up) series Grand Cherokee. Bought mine for the towing capacity and class III receiver but has turned into my long distance trip car, usually outfitted at a two-passenger with A Lot of luggage space. Unlike many it has a full size spare tire in a well designed for errata.

Will also hold four big tires and wheels with ease. 24 mpg on the Interstate and a DOHC 24valve v6, 4 wheel disks, and IRS. 50-50 weight distro. Specs are better than some of my race cars

 

Once again one of the super rich wants their own car company. Is a popular though often short-lived venture.

 

 

[joe_padavano]

13 hours ago, Bhigdog said:

 

I have my second Grand Cherokee (after a number of Durangos). It rides great. Makes child's play out of my 700' uphill drive way in the snow. Hauls my two hounds around with out having them on the upholstery. Lots of room for my camping gear. Carries my two hang gliders on the factory provided roof racks. Sits me well above the Hoi Polli in their BMWs and Hondas. Hauls my wife"s horse feed ( along with her fat ass). We can get in and out of it without feeling like it's a sunken bath tub. When we unload cargo it doesn't have to lifted UP and OUT of what's jokingly called a trunk. We just slide it out into our arms or a wheel barrow. Saves our aging backs. Gets good mileage............ And, it looks like it means it.

So what exactly is it you don't you understand? Just askin...................Bob

 

The fact that you represent 0.01% of all SUV owners doesn't answer my question. Why does someone who lives in the city and only drives on flat, paved roads want an uncomfortable SUV? The only time these vehicles go off-road is if the driver accidentally backs over the landscaping on the way out of the driveway. And I've driven several variations of new Jeep SUVs as rentals. They all have crappy rides. I've got a 4WD crewcab dually for hauling and driving on my unpaved farm road in mud and snow. There's no way I'd want to drive it every day. The 85 Delta 88 serves that purpose much more comfortably.

[8E45E]

Just now, joe_padavano said:

 

The fact that you represent 0.01% of all SUV owners doesn't answer my question. Why does someone who lives in the city and only drives on flat, paved roads want an uncomfortable SUV? The only time these vehicles go off-road is if the driver accidentally backs over the landscaping on the way out of the driveway. And I've driven several variations of new Jeep SUVs as rentals. They all have crappy rides. I've got a 4WD crewcab dually for hauling and driving on my unpaved farm road in mud and snow. There's no way I'd want to drive it every day. The 85 Delta 88 serves that purpose much more comfortably.

When there's heavy snow, the extra clearance and 4WD is a godsend, even on 'flat, paved roads'.  Those 'flat, paved roads' get iced up in wintertime, and one sure appreciates 4WD capabilities when the light turns green.  That way, more than three vehicles can make it through before it turns red again.  As well, SUV's for the most part, have greater towing capacity than a car, and I do tow a trailer with my F150 crewcab.

 

Craig

[Bhigdog]

1 hour ago, joe_padavano said:

The fact that you represent 0.01% of all SUV owners doesn't answer my question. Why does someone who lives in the city and only drives on flat, paved roads want an uncomfortable SUV?

 

Gee Joe, I thought I did answer your question. And virtually ALL of my driving is on paved, albeit hilly, roads.

It seems many people are willing to give up a marshmallow like ride for:

Superior traction/clearance.

Increased mass that increases occupant survivability.

Ease of entry/exit.

Cargo capability and ease of loading/unloading.

Foldable rear seat utility.

Factory hitch and towing capability.

Factory roof racks for bikes, skis, cargo boxes, sail boards, hang gliders,  etc, etc, etc

Although subjective I also disagree with at least my particular SUV being "uncomfortable". The heated seats are adjustable 6 ways and are very comfortable even on 10 hour trips. Ease of entry/egress is far superior to any jelly bean sedan along with superior internal space to just plain move around. I also find the increased "road feel" to be desirable and a plus to the driving experience.

It appears many thousands of drivers feel the "utility" aspect of a SUV far out weigh any attributes a family sedan may offer.

Your results may vary.........Bob

 

 

 

[Matt Harwood]

2 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

 

The fact that you represent 0.01% of all SUV owners doesn't answer my question. Why does someone who lives in the city and only drives on flat, paved roads want an uncomfortable SUV? The only time these vehicles go off-road is if the driver accidentally backs over the landscaping on the way out of the driveway. And I've driven several variations of new Jeep SUVs as rentals. They all have crappy rides. I've got a 4WD crewcab dually for hauling and driving on my unpaved farm road in mud and snow. There's no way I'd want to drive it every day. The 85 Delta 88 serves that purpose much more comfortably.

 

For most buyers, SUVs are fashion. Not saying anything about anyone here, but that's precisely why Lamborghini builds an SUV with a 700 horsepower V12 and why Aston-Martin is getting in on the act. They're worse in every possible way dynamically than an automobile--the only difference is that apparently you don't look as manly driving a sedan and to many buyers (most?) that matters more than how they drive.

[padgett]

Grand Cherokee is the best tow car I've ever had and also the best trip car. Mine does have the trailer towing package and is RWD (as are most GCs sold in Florida) but the ride particularly through Windermere (brick streets) is much better than my Cad CTS.

 

Might mention that while the GC has been around for a long time, in 2011 the version with the Mercedes ML350 chassis was introduced and the Pentastar engine shares a lot with the Mercedes M276. It gave 17-18 MPG pulling a 21 foot RV at 65 and 24mpg of 87 PON on a trip. Being a two row it is also only an inch longer than my CTS Coupe, is easy to park, and has fewer buttons (though a very good Bluetooth).

 

Of course being all GM before, there is no one more fanatical than a convert.

 

as to .01% since over 240,000 sold last year the SUV market mustabin over 240 million SUVs in the US.

 

ps over the years I have found that really good tires are more important than AWD/4WD. When I start to see the TC light out of a stop, I start looking for new tires.

[Bhigdog]

15 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

For most buyers, SUVs are fashion. Not saying anything about anyone here, but that's precisely why Lamborghini builds an SUV with a 700 horsepower V12 and why Aston-Martin is getting in on the act. They're worse in every possible way dynamically than an automobile--the only difference is that apparently you don't look as manly driving a sedan and to many buyers (most?) that matters more than how they drive.

 

Stunning generalization. Equating a Lamborghini or Aston-Martin SUV buyer to the mother sliding her groceries into the back of her Explorer or Jeep is just plain incorrect...........Bob

[39BuickEight]

23 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

For most buyers, SUVs are fashion. Not saying anything about anyone here, but that's precisely why Lamborghini builds an SUV with a 700 horsepower V12 and why Aston-Martin is getting in on the act. They're worse in every possible way dynamically than an automobile--the only difference is that apparently you don't look as manly driving a sedan and to many buyers (most?) that matters more than how they drive.

 

Extrapolate that out to pick up trucks, and you have an increasingly odd bunch of consumers.

[Bhigdog]

I suppose to folks living in a densely packed environment, living cheek by jowl with their contemporaries, driving short distances in stop and go traffic, a small compact or even an electric vehicle is the best choice. But for the many who are blessed with living in a more open, and dare I say, free environment a SUV or pick up is the most logical and best tool for the job at hand.

A "manly" image has little or nothing to do with it.

I must admit though that my 4 X 4 Dodge 2500 diesel pick up is a bitchin looking brute..................Bob

Edited February 25, 2020 by Bhigdog (see edit history)

[bryankazmer]

Physics will not be cheated.   A higher center of gravity, more mass, and generally poorer mass distribution (most are nose-heavy), mean that handling and braking are reduced.  Traction seems a moot point with so many AWD cars , and traction control, being available.  The point on tires is worth repeating also, and most OEM SUV tires are high aspect ratios.

[Matt Harwood]

19 minutes ago, Bhigdog said:

 

Stunning generalization. Equating a Lamborghini or Aston-Martin SUV buyer to the mother sliding her groceries into the back of her Explorer or Jeep is just plain incorrect...........Bob

 

I'm not arguing, but it's the direction the market is heading. It isn't my generalization, it's every automaker in the world making it. Minivans work far, far better for those jobs that mothers (and if we're talking about generalizations, you've dropped a lulu!) use them for such as loading and unloading groceries, but they nevertheless prefer SUVs by a significant margin. Station wagons are completely sales-proof in the US, even though they offer equal cargo space, low load floors, superior road dynamics, better fuel economy, and generally better performance. The image associated with station wagons is why nobody wants them. Same goes for minivans. Making the argument that SUVs are necessarily a practicality choice is specious at best.

 

The automakers deciding that a large majority of SUVs never go off road (and building light-duty FWD versions) suggests that they are indeed nothing more than personal preference, not necessarily "choosing the right tool for the job." BMW equips most of their SUVs with summer performance radials as standard equipment that are almost completely useless on anything but dry pavement (go watch Jeremy Clarkson trying to urge a BMW M5 up a snowy incline with four wheels spinning helplessly while the Range Rover motors past effortlessly). Ford eliminating all passenger cars except the Mustang in favor of SUVs pretty much confirms that people want SUVs, and there's not much evidence that buyers of SUVs are using them to tow trailers or haul big stuff home from Home Depot or go to remote areas. They just like the look and the image while the occasional usefulness comes in a distant third or fourth. Not simply my opinion, but also the opinion of every major automaker in the universe.

 

No, if it were merely for utility's sake and choosing the best tool for the job of suburban living, everyone would drive a minivan or a wagon and people in the north would buy the optional AWD for winter driving (here's where someone chimes in, "But my trailer!). Nevertheless, SUVs are on track to be the majority of the market, if they aren't already.

 

I'm not saying there aren't people who buy them for their utility and abilities and need an SUV for their lifestyle. I am saying that for most buyers, that has nothing to do with it. If it was only about cargo capacity or go-anywhere ability or ruggedness or even basic utility, vehicles like this would simply not exist:

 

[bryankazmer]

Spot on, Matt.  And as to those of you who are about to post how you really do often use your truck as a work truck, you are 10% of the buyers.

[Matt Harwood]

14 minutes ago, Bhigdog said:

I must admit though that my 4 X 4 Dodge 2500 diesel pick up is a bitchin looking brute..................Bob

 

Honest question with no confrontation implied: would you have bought it if it was ugly? Or pink? Or sitting on little whitewall tires? Same capabilities, same hardware underneath, but instead of a bitchin looking brute, it was kind of effeminate and soft looking?

 

I will personally admit that the look of my Dodge 2500 4x4 longbed extended cab pickup was EXACTLY why I bought it, even though that truck worked its ass off. I loved looking at the Big Red Dodge. There were other trucks that could do just as much work, but I had no interest. I wanted THAT truck because of the look.

 

[39BuickEight]

Remember folks, as car enthusiasts, we are not representative of the general public in terms of consumer spending.  Just like those car TV shows we love to critique, the mass production and sales of automobiles are based on attracting dollars, not the audience that actually knows about the product.

 

As mentioned already, a Jeep Grand Cherokee daily driver is important to us if we own one.  We clean our cars, learn about them, maintain them.  Most owners now never even open their hood once.  Part of my job is handling total loss auto claims.  You would be shocked how many people have no idea how many miles are on their car, and that when it's high, that makes the value of the car lower.  These are the people that are marketed by auto manufacturers.  The ones that don't understand anything about them.

 

[Bhigdog]

The simple fact that SUVs are the best selling vehicle makes them the BEST tool for the job as defined by the ultimate judge, the  user. There are  myriad reasons for any tool to be the best for the job at hand. And yes that includes looks and by extension "image".

That is true for everything from a hammer to a jet plane.

The customer has spoken. The SUV is what best fits their needs.

Let the pissing contest continue............Bob

[39BuickEight]

4 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

Honest question with no confrontation implied: would you have bought it if it was ugly? Or pink? Or sitting on little whitewall tires? Same capabilities, same hardware underneath, but instead of a bitchin looking brute, it was kind of effeminate and soft looking?

 

I will personally admit that the look of my Dodge 2500 4x4 longbed extended cab pickup was EXACTLY why I bought it, even though that truck worked its ass off. I loved looking at the Big Red Dodge. There were other trucks that could do just as much work, but I had no interest. I wanted THAT truck because of the look.

 

 

 

That, and you were an amateur tornado chaser.

 

 

[Matt Harwood]

Just now, 39BuickEight said:

 

That, and you were an amateur tornado chaser.

 

 

 

I will admit that I saw that movie and thought it was the best Dodge Ram commercial I had ever seen . I really wanted that truck so I bought it. I liked the silver on the bottom, so I added that, but otherwise, yes, I wanted the truck from "Twister" very very badly.

[Matt Harwood]

2 minutes ago, Bhigdog said:

The simple fact that SUVs are the best selling vehicle makes them the BEST tool for the job as defined by the ultimate judge, the  user. There are  myriad reasons for any tool to be the best for the job at hand. And yes that includes looks and by extension "image".

That is true for everything from a hammer to a jet plane.

The customer has spoken. The SUV is what best fits their needs.

Let the pissing contest continue............Bob

 

It sounds like we agree. Let people buy what the want. I don't care, you don't care. But for most, the trucky SUV is all about fashion. It's the same reason we don't all wear silver jumpsuits instead of the clothes we choose. Image and fashion--don't pretend it's anything different.

Hell, why were there custom coachbuilders in the '30s building magnificent cars when any Ford would get you from point A to point B just as well?

[Bhigdog]

5 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

Honest question with no confrontation implied: would you have bought it if it was ugly? Or pink? Or sitting on little whitewall tires? Same capabilities, same hardware underneath, but instead of a bitchin looking brute, it was kind of effeminate and soft looking?

 

I will personally admit that the look of my Dodge 2500 4x4 longbed extended cab pickup was EXACTLY why I bought it, even though that truck worked its ass off. I loved looking at the Big Red Dodge. There were other trucks that could do just as much work, but I had no interest. I wanted THAT truck because of the look.

 

 

That's really funny. My truck is exactly the same in a  standard cab, including the color combination. Of course mine is a much more MANLY Cummins HO diesel..........😉..........Bob

[39BuickEight]

My brothers is identical but blue on top. 

[bryankazmer]

well, pink maybe.  But if it were green....  

[Matt Harwood]

29 minutes ago, Bhigdog said:

 

That's really funny. My truck is exactly the same in a  standard cab, including the color combination. Of course mine is a much more MANLY Cummins HO diesel..........😉..........Bob

Yeah, mine was just a 360. It was adequate most of the time and the truck itself would haul anything but as soon as you started to go uphill with anything more than a toolbox in the bed, it would downshift to 2nd and just grind along. I regretted not having the diesel and the next heavy-duty pickup I buy absolutely WILL be a diesel. No other way to do it, that's for sure.

[Bhigdog]

1 minute ago, Matt Harwood said:

Yeah, mine was just a 360. It was adequate most of the time and the truck itself would haul anything but as soon as you started to go uphill with anything more than a toolbox in the bed, it would downshift to 2nd and just grind along. I regretted not having the diesel and the next heavy-duty pickup I buy absolutely WILL be a diesel. No other way to do it, that's for sure.

 

I had a gasser before this one and hauling my enclosed trailer with a Buick in it had it's tongue hanging out most  all of the time. The Cummins changed that plus I get about 20-22 MPH highway mileage (without the trailer.).........Bob

[Frank DuVal]

1 hour ago, Matt Harwood said:

If it was only about cargo capacity or go-anywhere ability or ruggedness or even basic utility, vehicles like this would simply not exist:

 

 

As the joke said, now you have gone from preaching to meddling!😆

 

We have two of these. Wife said in 2015, 17 years driving the Saturn SW2 wagon (200 K miles) time to get a new car. Same dimensions of car, just I need to sit higher, as trying toget in the Saturn is more difficult now than 17 years ago. And all those new headlamps blinding her at night while sitting at sedan height!!!!!!! She found the Encore and fell in love. Nice and small, but easy to get in and out of for her. 

 

Then the daughter's Corvair got a critical case of rust, and she liked the Encore, so, another 2015 is now in the driveway.😉

 

The buying public spoke, and car makers listened.....

 

I think the headlamp issue drives most people to buy higher vehicles.