Aston Martin one-77 >7.3L V12 >750 hp >zero to 0

>>17773364
1/77

>>17773364
My opinion is that it is a beautiful car but English so it will have expensive issues. I still want one.

>>17773364
I love Astons but the grille ruins the aesthetic. I know it needs to be bigger than normal but it looks like a bottom-feeder

>>17773547
Summed it up nicely, I want to hear that engine

>>17773584
> Move in 0.42

https://youtu.be/Z10l-SyMlJ8

File: db7.jpg (96KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x768px

Why did they take a beautiful low slung shape and put that fucking face on it. Looks retarded.

Like the grill is their identity so they gotta MAXIMISE it. Minimalism works better on cars like this, classier.

looks like a fucking salmon

ugly

File: 95b.jpg (76KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 327x316px

>>17773364

File: spooky_car.jpg (65KB, 518x205px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 518x205px

>>17773798
that car looks fuckin spooky

>>17773364
It should be faster, given the numbers. Sad it isnt. Wonder why?

MB S63 AMG returns a 3.7 sec 0-60 but weighs over 1000lb more, with 4 fewer cylinders and near 2 liters less, granted has two turbos but still. 577hp from AMG gets the same result as 750hp from Aston.

What gives? I'm not even an AMG fan

>>17773364
>zero to 0 to 60 mph 3.7
that's slow by today's standards

>>17774482
Theres no point in going fast in something that looks this good.

>>17773364
Is that the new bond vehicle?

File: IMG_1392.jpg (158KB, 1080x607px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1080x607px

>>17773612
>that cold start

>>17774594
I know. But still, on paper the vehicle looks weak. I guess nobody would complain it's slow driving it IRL.

>>17774383
Tires, AWD and testing. 0-60 is not really a matter of power after a certain point. That's also why I find such tests kinda useless.
They can probably pull some stupid 0-60 number with semi slicks and the right testing environment but 3.7 sounds very much IRL achievable.

>>17774706
I definitely used that car as an example but what I meant my point to be was that a run of the mill fatty production car is just as quick and it's not a supercar. Realistically Aston make sports cars, GTs, and the occasional supercar. If all they make are powerful and sporty, shouldn't their supercar be mindblowing? Especially at $1.8m or whatever it was. The car of topic was pretty underwhelming once you got past the mad looks

And I get that metrics like 0-60 and 1/4 are trivial because of all the variables at play, and track times are pretty useless for the same reasons. But if the supercar of a sports car company that costs so much can't outgun a sports-luxury car of a sedan company, why even make it? What does it say about Aston as a whole?

>>17773364

>Will still leak oil under 10,000km

>>17774809
It can't outrun a sports- luxury car in 3 seconds but after that it won't even be a race. The charm is the NA engine, limited production and jerking it to muh quality handmade shit. And in all honesty it's their supercar but it's still a GT so it's not really going for trackrats. Especially at that price and considering that there's the Vulcan.
It's not my cup of tea either but it's really not a bad car. The front looks retarded but aesthetics are very subjective and it seems to fill a free spot in the market. Maybe I'm missing something but I can't really think of a GT supercar that's not a Bugatti and it seems like a very nice daily for someone with an unlimited budget.

pigfat

>>17774809
I believe you are confusing this with the Vulcan. That's the one you'd look for when it comes to insane numbers

>muh no street version
There's a company that makes street legal kits for nearly every track only vehicle, from the vulcan to the P1 GTR to even the kawasaki H2R blown bike. Over half of all vulcans and P1 GTR's have already been converted to street legal