Aston Martin V8 Vantage vs Audi R8 vs Porsche 911 Turbo


Car and Driver Comparison Test of Porsche 911 Turbo Audi R8 and Aston Martin V8 Vantage. Hard to choose between the three: -the Audi R8 is the coolest -the Aston Martin V8 Vantage is the best looking -the Porsche 911 Turbo has the best driving dynamics Being a Porsche fan, I would have to give the nod to the 911 Turbo.

Tags: , , , , ,

25 Responses to “Aston Martin V8 Vantage vs Audi R8 vs Porsche 911 Turbo”

  1. IuseAudi says:

    God Save Audi.

  2. MrMuscleMacho says:

    i’ll take all 3

  3. BigEyeGreedy says:

    I’d still take the Aston!

  4. laxer27 says:

    pretty sure these are all exotic..

  5. UserNamei5 says:

    911 turbo is the real Sports car. It is just a Race car dressed as a road car.

    Id have the 911 :)

  6. Asakura289 says:

    Lambo do use Audi parts, but only for interior use. Gallardo Spyder and original Murcielago use centre console from an A8, as for the DSG box, originally VW’s idea I believe…

  7. TheDCdudeADS says:

    V8 vantage can now beat the V8 Audi R8, it now has a 420BHP 4.7L V8, so it’s just as powerful and i think it’s lighter as well, so i would get a AM vantage, then the R8 than the 911 Turbo, but I think all 3 are great cars!

  8. armebear says:

    audi always win because audi is best

  9. Jordeleo says:

    “Drive fast.. and take chances”

    thats a horrible drive slogan lol

  10. daibadrumu says:

    @moodi12 trollfag detected

  11. moodi12 says:

    My honda Civic is wayy faster pushin 480 hp and i can run circles around all these super cars!

  12. perfacetus says:

    Do you know when the Estoque was shown in the Paris Motor show? 2008, which means while it was being developed VW had no idea that Porsche had bought the options to buy their shares making them the owner.

    Strangely enough after that they considered pulling the car due to ‘poor market and competition from ‘related vehicles’.

    Each time you call me a retard, it is (a) impolite and (b) invites embarrassment.

  13. perfacetus says:

    1. Type in “audi lamborghini” and you’ll find a report on it, second link. 20%
    2. Competing on price against another part of your own company would only lose money. It may share technologies but that is it. They don’t really ‘compete.

    Think about it, if one company owning another didn’t damage competition why do you think almost every free market jurisdiction has merger regulations to stop companies like Audi buying companies like Lambo.

  14. SportLeichtRensport says:

    oh and btw, the Estoque is meant to be competing with the Porsche Panamera and guess what company porsche belongs to retard

  15. SportLeichtRensport says:

    the first Lambo car that might have audi parts is lambo estoque, the 4 door saloon, probably cause it was some dipshit in audi that pushed for it. the estoque diverges away from lambo’s tradition and imo, fuck that car. it’s nice and all but it’s not what a lambo should be

  16. SportLeichtRensport says:

    1. give me the link to Stephan Winkelmann’s quote. audi uses lambo engines (ex. S8), lambo does not use audi parts
    2. different brands under one company still compete with each other because that’ll boost profit. ex future shop and best buy in Canada
    3. they could bring the talent and job back to germany but it’s always better to have 2 assets than 1, especially when both those assets have been steady financially for a while now, but yes I agree it would probably scale in the short run.

  17. perfacetus says:

    If Lambo lost their market share to Audi it would hardly care, it could close the Lambo plant, bring the talent and jobs back to Germany and then produce more Audis, which according to the economies of scale would make their production cheaper and therefore their profit higher.

    You call me dumb and yet evidently you only just have the intelligence to work a keyboard. You have no idea about competition, business or economics. Shut up and learn something.

  18. perfacetus says:

    Yes market share is defined as the percentage of the product market, which is established through the SSNIP test (subject of course to the cellophane fallacy).

    I never said that if revenue goes down quality goes up. What I said was the less competition the lower quality goes, and it has to be competition from a totally separate company.

    I can’t believe you’re even try to argue this one! 20% of all Lambos are Audi parts (according to Audi pres Stephan Winkelmann)

    You’re an embarrassment…

  19. SportLeichtRensport says:

    And when a company owns another company, it doesn’t mean they share the same pool of money retard… if Lambo loses their market share to Audi, they lose their market share, Audi isn’t going to hand it back to them, unless they are in deep shit which they are not. FUCK UR DUMB

  20. SportLeichtRensport says:

    Do you know the definition of a market share? There’s several but all of them, one way or another, refer to a company’s revenue. According to you, if a company’s revenue goes down, quality will go up… but idk how that makes sense
    less money = more quality? rofl don’t use words u don’t know.
    And actually, they don’t even use same parts, Lambo designs and makes all its parts from its single factory in Italy. Tell me a part that’s used in both in Audis and Lambo?

  21. PoopnSuch says:

    Id take the Austin Martin over Porsche or Audi any day

  22. perfacetus says:

    The reason why they released the v10 R8 is that now that they own Lambo they can use the same parts, put a different body on and pretend they have a new car.

    Competition only leads to better quality if the company as a whole will lose its market share, if Lambo lost its market share to Audi… it would mean nothing because Lambo is Audi so the company profits (what counts) would still be the same.

    Lol, if you had any idea about competition maybe you would have some useful input.

  23. SportLeichtRensport says:

    uh huh okay so that’s why Audi released the V10 R8 which puts it in the category of Lamborghini Gallardo? lol competition leads to better quality which is why capitalist countries have the highest standard of living. Yeah it benefits the consumers but it benefits the business a lot more, if you had any idea of the concept of business, you wouldn’t be talking shit

  24. perfacetus says:

    @SportLeichtRensport

    No the company wouldn’t want to compete against itself. That would only benefit the consumer not the companies.

  25. perfacetus says:

    All that and I would still have the Aston over any of the others.

    Given a generation of two more and they should up the BHP too.

Leave a Reply