GTP Cool Wall: Aston Martin DB5

Do not understand why, but can not be convinced about the looks of this one.

Know it is a great car, James Bond, etc...

So ended up at Meh...

(Tastes and colours can not be discussed)

Call me Silva, Dan Silva.

Old cars are cool around here. Old cars that are rare as hens teeth and driven by one of the coolest movie characters of all time?

Yeah. I think you know how I voted.

((Even though the Original Bond - the Book Bond - Drove Bentleys.))

Famine: Regarding your 2.4 Honda comparo...Yeah. No. Don't care. Doesn't make a squat of difference to me that they can be outrun by a family car, albeit a pretty damn peppy one. I know that engines have become more efficient, tires have gotten better...that's progress. That's obvious. But speed is not equal to Cool. We know this, because the 9FF GT9, a car capable of well over 200 mi/h, is burning in the pit of Seriously Uncool. And, a monster truck capable of no more than a hundred miles an hour (though it'll hit 60, on dirt, over cars, in less than 5 seconds - or could in the PENDA era...) is nicely chilled in Sub-Zero.

Everyone will think you're a spy, and simply saying your name like James Bond while leaning on this car will make girls panties go flying off and land on your rear view mirror.

Sub-Zero

An interesting piece of kit (always wanted to say that), made famous by Mr. Bond.

Cool

The coolest Aston Martin. Sub Zero

It's an Aston. It's James Bond's car. It's a classic car.

Subzero time a quadrillion +1. There aren't much more subzero cars over this. I'd love to have one in BRG too.

Drive that into any Hotel or Casino and i garuntee everybody will look.

I really like the car, Sub Zero

Sub Zero, no other place for it.

SUB ZERO definatly. Saw one in NZ with the plates JB 007. Thats just awesome right there. Plus its a beautiful car

It sort of looks like the ford thunderbird from the front..
Who am I kidding, You can't compare an aston martin to a ford!

Jim Prower

Regarding your Top Gear's 2.4 Honda comparo...Yeah. No. Don't care. Doesn't make a squat of difference to me that they can be outrun by a family car, albeit a pretty damn peppy one. I know that engines have become more efficient, tires have gotten better...that's progress. That's obvious.

Click to expand...

+1 if you would put it against an other '64 car it would be great.

Just for my vote: I never saw one, but would I turn my head more then for a Nissan 300ZX. No, and somehow I believe I would keep looking more at the Nissan. But that remains personal. Shure would take a picture.

The classic James Bond vehicle... definitely deserves a Sub-Zero rating.

I actually had a bit of trouble here. I kept thinking about how this car was never really good, unreliable, slow, bad handling. I even thought, I haven't seen the really good Bond flicks, so my hand was hovering over uncool.

Then I realized, holy crap. It's the ASTON MARTIN that JAMES FREAKING BOND drove. Sub zero for sheer audacity.

Cool.

Just not aching beautiful enough to be sub-zero.

Jim Prower

Famine: Regarding your 2.4 Honda comparo...Yeah. No. Don't care. Doesn't make a squat of difference to me that they can be outrun by a family car, albeit a pretty damn peppy one. I know that engines have become more efficient, tires have gotten better...that's progress. That's obvious. But speed is not equal to Cool. We know this, because the 9FF GT9, a car capable of well over 200 mi/h, is burning in the pit of Seriously Uncool. And, a monster truck capable of no more than a hundred miles an hour (though it'll hit 60, on dirt, over cars, in less than 5 seconds - or could in the PENDA era...) is nicely chilled in Sub-Zero.

Click to expand...

Uhhh... you missed the point somewhat. By quite some margin, I might add.

Famine

The figures are quite interesting ones...

Click to expand...

ty00123

* Power: 282 bhp (210 kW) at 5500 rpm
* Torque: 288 lb·ft (390 N·m) at 3850 rpm
* Weight: 1,502 kg (3,310 lb)
* Top Speed: 145 mph (233 km/h)
* 0–60 mph (97 km/h) Acceleration: 7.1 s

Performance data from Motor magazine road test, February 6, 1965.

Click to expand...

The Accord in the video has less power (220hp to 282hp), a poorer PWR ratio (157hp/tonne to 188hp/tonne), less torque (164lbft to 288lbft) and a poorer 0-60mph time (7.7s to 7.1s) yet was at no point behind the Aston in the drag race.

Which brings us to the point of it. Not that a modern car can beat an older one - that's silly. But why a modern car which is absolutely slower in every measurable respect on paper can beat a faster, older one in reality...

Jeremy Clarkson

Well, let me explain. They were lying!

Click to expand...

Nothing to do with cool or the Cool Wall (see how I didn't mention it?). Just the figures.

Then again, I suppose lying about how fast your car is isn't particularly cool...

It's so cool that pretty much nobody can actually get away with driving one. It's just that hard to match the car's coolness (although there's a gent who commutes in a DB4 around here...)

Famine

Uhhh... you missed the point somewhat. By quite some margin, I might add.





The Accord in the video has less power (220hp to 282hp), a poorer PWR ratio (157hp/tonne to 188hp/tonne), less torque (164lbft to 288lbft) and a poorer 0-60mph time (7.7s to 7.1s) yet was at no point behind the Aston in the drag race.

Which brings us to the point of it. Not that a modern car can beat an older one - that's silly. But why a modern car which is absolutely slower in every measurable respect on paper can beat a faster, older one in reality...



Nothing to do with cool or the Cool Wall (see how I didn't mention it?). Just the figures.

Then again, I suppose lying about how fast your car is isn't particularly cool...

Click to expand...

Actually, that really doesn't surprise me much. Y'see...aside from having 40 year-old drivetrain bits and likely an OEM-type clutch plate, as well as original style bias ply tires...American manufacturers in that era lied about power all the time. In fact, they had a name for it.

SAE Gross.

It's actually kinda funny what you could get away with. Didn't have to run full exhaust, could build custom exhaust manifolds, advance or retard the timing to make maximum power, run it on avgas...But, I digress, This has nothing to do with Cool, You're absolutely right.

I feel very strange being the only person who doesn't think this car is cool.

You dont need an explanation, it is simply just, sub-zero.

The DB5 is a really beautiful car and an iconic shape being immortalized by those great James Bond movies but cool?
It's obviously cool to most people ( even those unaware or interested in cars ) and so iconic it's almost too obvious and bordering on cliché in my opinion.
The only thing which saves it partly from being a cliché is the relative rarity and enormous value which makes it a rare sight if encountered in real life but still.
The same unfortunately can be said of the E-type ( although not as rare ) which I really loved even as a child ( and still do ).
The definition of cool is subjective ofcourse like taste, but I'd rather prefer something more enigmatic than a car so famous and so closely associated with James Bond that it looks like you're living out your secret James Bond fantasies whilst driving it.
So is it cool? A bit too cool to be truly cool perhaps ( does that even make sense? ) and remember I love this car and the classic James Bond movies as well but I'll go for a less obvious choice, a DBS V8 perhaps and save some money for gadgets.

James Bond drove it and he is almost the definition of cool.

The car is absolutly stunning. I caught a glimpse of one in Houston while car spotting. I've been looking for it ever since! And as mentioned several times, James Bond drove it!

It would be unfair to not give this a sub-zero!

Cool despite the fact that James Bond drove it.

It's an Aston Martin, and that's cool
It's an old Aston Martin, and that's cool
James Bond drove it, and that's cool
It has Superleggera written on the side, and that's cool.

So, sub-zero....

I'm loving it simply because of the prodigous power output from a 4.0L 6cyl, a power output that is oddly not even matched by the Ford Falcon's 4.0L 6cyl today, which has more torque and over a very wide torque band, and a much higher peak power rpm.
What doesn't make sense is how 210kw loses to that Accord on Top Gear posted by Famine.

Paulie

What doesn't make sense is how 210kw loses to that Accord on Top Gear posted by Famine.

Click to expand...

The car's 46 years old. Even if it's been restored at some point, it's unlikely that the engine still makes those figures. Carburetors soon fall out of tune and keeping all 3 SU's running equally i would imagine to be a constant battle. It also runs on a 46 year old design of tyre, they just don't have the traction available that even a modest all-weather modern tyre does.