You can see a video of the car on YouTube. It includes a lot of car revs.

 

All fine and dandy, but that is one ugly roof line and you can only rev the engine when it's parked

 

MY 18 will look the same, no major changes. You can expect Jaguar to keep that design for probably 10 years and pray they eventually get rid of that bar on the front.

I am in agreement, not fond of this Aston concept car, because it does look a little too F type. But that is all it is, a concept, not for production.

Park an Aston Martin Vantage (10 year old design) next to an F type, and take a poll. You may not like the results.

 

Agreed the F type grill doesn't look that good with the bar in it, but to call it a "butter face" is a little harsh.

 

I think the FTYPE is the pretty sister.

 

I was kidding. This Aston concept is not a favorite of mine either.

 

i think it looks pretty nice, only thing a little boring is the front grille.

 

closer to what one might expect from concept to production. Is this the 2nd iteration, and it's still not near production?

Funny that the Ford Fusion ripping off their grille now has me saying it looks like a Ford Fusion. LOL Also, that top is a bit brutalist.

In 2005 when I started saving, I was saving for a used Aston. Then Ian did this thing and simply robbed the Aston of any reason of buying it... so Aston has to do this. And we all know they mentioned they are selling to women far more often... why then, the V12?

Is this Fisker coupe look alike meant to challenge the SVR, etc? It's so interesting, how Jaguar is on the scene. Jeep's building a high end SUV to compete with JLR & seemingly more the F-Pace than the Evoque. Aston is trying to emulate their old designer's new Jag design.

It's all so fascinating to see where Jag just positioned itself, and caught people off guard. I might be off on all this..... but yes. The F-Type is easily still one of the most beautiful on the road. I'm actually off overt and garrish super cars to any extent, as my base F-Type has me looking back at the greatest touring sports cars as more of a purist vibe than wanting the Scanner's head explosion stylized torque bombs. =)

 

It's so funny... because the reason I love the F-Type so much more than the look of the last 15yrs of Aston is that they become far too, pardon the bad description, "long and sharky". Yes, we can all take some time to revel in how bad that description is. I guess I am just saying the proportions "feel" more like golden ratios to me with the F-Type....

Here's Aston shots.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin


but the best part is that my favorite car of all time, and one I plan to own one day, is the BMW 8 series from the early 90's. Arguably a "long and sharky" vehicle. LOL Not sure liking BMW is appropriate here. =)

 

From Edmunds.

F-Type
Width 74.2"
Length 176"
Height 51.6"
Wheel base 103.2"

Vantage
Width 73.4"
Length 172.6"
Height 49.6"
Wheel base 102.4"

I think the F-Type is a little to long (3.4")and a little to tall (2"). And the interior, well, we won't go there.

 

It's funny how perceptions can be misleading. Many think the F-Type is smaller than the C7. I don't care much about interiors as long as the seats are comfortable, but with regard to weight, I am going there . . . :-)

C7 (also from Edmunds)
Width 73.9
Length 176.9
Height 48.8
Wheel base 106.7
Weight 3299 lbs.

 

What the weight of the C7 has to do with its looks we don't know...

 

might be politically incorrect, but excessive weight does detract from beauty.

 

We're talking about cars right?

 

Yes, we are. And excessive weight does make a car less desirable to a handling enthusiast. I still can't get my head around a 4K lb. 2 seater.

 

+1. It's absurd.

 

I understand, but the OP @ Unhingd started this thread because of the looks of the F-type, the fact that it's a tubby baby not withstanding.

 

Yes, the weight is irrelevant to the styling discussion and no, they don't weigh 4000 lbs as both Foosh and Unhinged well know. ;-) Hyperbole perhaps....

While were OT on the weight issue, this reminds me to see if our weigh scale is back in service yet.

Cheers,
Dave

 

Actually, the V8s are within round-off error of 4K, considering where my V6 and others came out. Not many V8 owners apparently wanted to weigh their cars.

 

Then it must be the 2" in height? That's baffling. LOL I must be the rabbit with the pancake on its head


I love this Socal... I'm a huge skeptic, big rationalist, materialist, etc.... I love finding moments where my brain believes what it wants, and bucks reality. I don't like tricking myself, and I am unanimous in that.

As for weight, almighty Google is delivering VERY fast results for a lot of searches, in a bold, easy to see box.

If you type "F-Type weight", voila... 3455 - 3847lbs.

C7 is 3444 - 3523


I passed a truck scale the other day and thought about weighing mine... you can literally just drive up and weigh, then go? That simple?


Anyone want to ramble philosophy on pros and cons of the Goldilocks of weight? What's too light, what's too heavy, and what's *just right*? =) I know it's dependent on the car. Basically a ratio of being heavy enough to have traction on the road... OOOH WAIT! Design does play into weight because of downforce. You can have a light enough car that doesn't fly off the road if the proper downforce is generated. But there's a point where it's too light.

I guess too light is this (time stamp might not work, so go to about 1m40s):