2026 Aston Martin Vantage S First Look: A Performance Ad-Vantage
The 2026 Aston Martin Vantage S debuts with a more powerful twin-turbo V-8, several chassis tweaks, and enhanced aerodynamics. It also features new design elements, 21-inch wheels, and an upgraded interior. It won't be cheap.
This summary was generated by AI using content from this MotorTrend article Read Next
The Vantage S slightly pumps up the 4.0-liter twin-turbo V-8 engine's output to 671 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque (up from 656 hp; torque is the same), all still funneled to rear wheels through an eight-speed rear-mounted transaxle. This is controlled by a new throttle response curve unique to the Vantage S, as well, with Aston claiming a 0–60-mph of just 3.3 seconds—a 0.4-second improvement over the standard Vantage. An electronic limited slip differential provides a helping hand with traction and cornering, and it's all backed up by improved control software programming with a launch control function. Top speed is stated as 202 mph.
The additional power and electronically enhanced control is mostly worthless without a chassis that can handle it, and that's where Aston's engineers focused their energies. The Vantage S receives new suspension hardware (including Bilstein DTX adaptive dampers) and powertrain mounts, and the rear subframe is now mounted directly to the chassis with the deletion of its rubber bushings. Aston promises the Vantage S will have improved front grip, better agility, and heightened front-end feel.
Visual changes include a new set of centrally mounted hood 'blades' finished in either gloss black or exposed 2x2 twill carbon fiber. These blades are functional, as they improve heat extraction from the 'hot-V' engine, where the exhaust and turbos are mounted in the valley of the engine block rather than hung off the sides of the heads. You'll also find the usual 'S' badging, including on the fenders, which receive forged brass versions with infilled red glass enamel surrounded by chrome plating. This chrome can be finished bright or dark. Aerodynamic improvements come courtesy of a new rear spoiler that adds 97 pounds of downforce at max velocity; it works in combination with the car's underbody, air dam, and front venturi vanes to deliver a total of 245 pounds of downforce.
A set of 21-inch wheels house a set of bronze-colored brake calipers that clamp down on 16-inch front and 14.2-inch rear steel rotors, or you can upgrade to carbon ceramics and get slightly larger front discs. The summer tires are Michelin Pilot Sport S 5 AMLs—sized 275/35 in front and 325/30 at the rear—while Pilot Alpin 5 AMLs are offered as a winter fitment. The multispoke wheels can be ordered in satin black with red accents.
Inside, the 2026 Vantage S continues its variance from the standard Aston Martin Vantage by using Alcantara and leather interior surfaces mixed with satin 2x2 twill carbon fiber trim. The interior also features 'S' logos on the upper seat backs, embroidered in a color matching thread. The Aston Martin appears on the headrests via what the company says is an industry-first technique. Rather than simply being embroidered, Aston's upholstery team have both embossed and debossed the logo, utilizing heat and 3,300 pounds of pressure to press the logo into the leather.
The knurled drive mode rotary dial can be finished in red or silver, which is matched by other accents throughout. There are of course a plethora of additional options available to Vantage S buyers, such as monotone and two-tone schemes, full semi-aniline leather, or a 'Inspire Sport' theme that combines semi-aniline leather and Alcantara. The latter also adds chevron quilting and perforations to the seat upholstery.
The order books are open now for the 2026 Vantage S, which can be had as a coupe or roadster—pricing isn't yet public, but we're sure you're good for it. Deliveries are scheduled to begin later this year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
36 minutes ago
- Forbes
Competition Law And Technology Platform Censorship
KRAKOW, POLAND - 2018/08/17: In this photo illustration, the Facebook logo is seen on a Huawei ... More smartphone with the word censored on a laptop monitor. (Photo Illustration by Omar Marques/SOPA Images/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) The Federal Trade Commission recently launched a public inquiry into technology platform censorship. Digital platform censorship clearly raises serious policy concerns. Nevertheless, before filing lawsuits, the FTC (and its fellow enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, DOJ) will need to factor in First Amendment protections enjoyed by platforms and limitations on agency statutory authority. Bringing platform censorship cases may not be the best use of limited agency resources. The FTC's Concerns In soliciting public comments in support of its inquiry, the FTC stated that it seeks 'to better understand how technology platforms deny or degrade users' access to services based on the content of their speech or affiliations, and how this conduct may have violated the law.' The FTC stressed that such actions by platforms may run afoul of antitrust or consumer protection laws: 'Censorship by technology platforms is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal. Tech firms can employ confusing or unpredictable internal procedures that cut users off, sometimes with no ability appeal the decision. Such actions taken by tech platforms may harm consumers, affect competition, may have resulted from a lack of competition, or may have been the product of anti-competitive conduct.' The FTC could attempt to argue that such harmful behavior violates the FTC Act's prohibitions against 'unfair methods of competition (UMC) and 'unfair or deceptive acts or practices' (UDAP). Proving UMC or UDAP violations, however, could prove quite difficult. FTC and DOJ Legal Challenges First Amendment Protections FTC and DOJ enforcement powers are constrained by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Moody v. NetChoice (2024), holding that social media platforms' content moderation decisions are protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Court's Moody decision clarifies that the First Amendment applies to online platforms and that content moderation decisions are protected. Thus platforms may freely decide whether to include or exclude particular opinions – the government cannot regulate the platforms' choices 'just by asserting an interest in better balancing the marketplace of ideas.' Unfair Methods of Competition (UMAC) The FTC's UMAC authority covers unilateral and joint anticompetitive conduct that would violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. The DOJ enforces the Sherman Act directly. Section 2 of the Sherman Act forbids unilateral actions of monopolization or attempted monopolization by dominant firms. The FTC would first have to show that a platform had a monopoly power over an avenue for public digital expression. This would prove almost impossible to do, given the large number of social media platforms (for example, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, YouTube, and TikTok). But even if a platform were held to monopolize some social media market, monopolization requires a showing of 'anticompetitive conduct' – such as disfavoring rivals without a legitimate business justification. Supreme Court case law, however, sharply limits a monopolist's liability for refusals to deal, meaning that such a showing would probably fail. Nevertheless, if a court found monopoly power and anticompetitive conduct, the Moody decision would preclude a court from striking down discriminatory content moderation decisions by the monopolist platform. The FTC potentially could argue that UMAC extends to 'standalone' violations – unilateral unfair platform business conduct that falls short of Sherman Act monopolization. The First Amendment would, once again, prevent this argument from restricting the platform's moderation policy. Section 1 of the Sherman Act declares illegal anticompetitive concerted conduct – contracts, combinations, or conspiracies that unreasonably restraint trade. Public comments suggest that the FTC and the DOJ are considering 3 types of potential Section 1 violations: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) Platform censorship could only constitute 'deception' or 'unfair' acts or practices under very narrow conditions that are seldom met, as explained in a commentary by George Mason Law School economics and privacy scholars. Any FTC platform UDAP cases likely would be 'legal longshots,' representing a low probability of success at a high resource cost. Deception As the economics and privacy scholars point out, 'a representation is deceptive under the FTC Act if it is material and likely to mislead a significant minority of reasonable consumers.' Applying this test, a deception claim for platform censorship would only fly if a platform could be shown to have violated very specific statements about how it would deal with particular types of content. Platforms are not likely to have made such very specific promises. Broad statements about a platform's moderation policy are inherently subjective, and would likely be seen by courts as mere 'puffery.' Furthermore, claims that a platform 'fooled' consumers by engaging in 'hate speech' or 'misinformation' are subjective as well and unlikely to pass muster in court. Unfairness The FTC Act provides that '[a]n act or practice is unfair if it (1) causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury, (2) that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition; and (3) is not reasonably avoidable.' To win a platform censorship case, the FTC would have to show: (1) a direct link between breaches of platform terms of service and harm imposed on many consumers; plus (2) harm suffered by disfavored consumers that outweighed the benefits to other platform users (such as a reduction in content the second group disliked); plus (3) disfavored consumers could not have reasonably avoided their injury (unlikely, since those consumers could readily have found other platforms to post or review comments). Any 1 of those showings would be hard to prove in court, let alone all 3. Next Step for the Agencies The FTC's inquiry into technology platform censorship may well bring to light abuses of government power and actions by digital platforms that systematically favor particular viewpoints. Shedding a spotlight on such conduct plainly serves the public interest, particularly when public malfeasance is revealed – as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously stated, 'sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.' FTC inquiry sunshine could lead platforms to revisit and perhaps reform their content moderation policies. It might also discourage government officials from providing troublesome non-public content moderation 'advice' to platforms. Both consumers and many commercial businesses that deal with platforms would benefit. What's more, these benefits could be achieved without the costs and uncertainties of lawsuits, which would face major First Amendment challenges and a low probability of success. This reality, particularly in a time of tight agency budgets, would seem to counsel against bringing platform censorship cases. By allocating all (or virtually all) of their litigation resources to more traditional antitrust and consumer protection matters, the FTC and the DOJ could get the 'greatest bang for the enforcement buck.' This would benefit American consumers and competition.
New York Times
36 minutes ago
- New York Times
Head of S.E.C.'s Crypto Task Force Says ‘Tokenized' Stocks Are Securities
The head of the Securities & Exchange Commission's crypto task force said on Wednesday that efforts to 'tokenize,' or create digital versions of stocks and other securities, are still governed by federal securities laws. 'Tokenized securities are still securities,' Hester M. Peirce, who is also an S.E.C. commissioner, said in a statement, and 'market participants must consider — and adhere to — the federal securities laws when transacting in these instruments.' Ms. Peirce's statement is not official S.E.C. policy. But as a longstanding commissioner and leader of the crypto task force, her positions carry a good deal of weight at the regulatory agency. Ms. Peirce was nominated to the S.E.C. by President Trump during his first administration. A tokenized stock is a digital version of the security that, rather than being tied to a particular stock exchange, can be traded on a blockchain at any time. A blockchain is a digital ledger that, in theory, records all transactions involving cryptocurrencies or other digital assets and is maintained on a network of computers. The statement from Ms. Peirce, a longtime crypto proponent, comes as some in the crypto industry are pushing to permit investors to trade digital versions of stocks and other assets on their platforms in Europe and the United States. Some critics have worried that the tokenization of assets like shares in private companies that can be traded on the blockchain might mean those digital assets are not subject to federal securities laws. Ms. Peirce, whose commission recently held a hearing on the issue of tokenization, has long argued that regulators should keep an open mind about new technologies. But in her statement she said crypto companies also need to be mindful of securities laws. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Prime Day Deals: These Stylish Bluetooth Headphones Impressed Me With Their Crazy Battery Life -- And They've Never Been Cheaper
Amazon Prime Day sale: Marshall's Major V headphones are worth it even at full price, but they're a steal right now at $100 -- or around 38% off -- during Prime Day. I might not be a true battle-tested headphone expert like CNET's own Dave Carnoy, but I still love headphones and I'm confident in what I like about them. My most recent pickup, the Marshall Major V on-ear bluetooth headphones, quickly became a pair that I adore What is Marshall? Marshall is a British audio hardware company that got its start back in the early '60s and became renowned for producing things like amps and speakers for live music performances. More recently, they've made a mark in the consumer audio space, producing home speakers with a distinctly "rock-and-roll" visual aesthetic -- think rough-patterned black leather materials, gold trim, and prominent physical buttons. Hey, did you know? CNET Deals texts are free, easy and save you money. They've also brought their signature sound and style to headphones. Recently, I picked up the Major V, Marshall's latest iteration of its on-ear bluetooth model (thats V as in 5, not the letter), and I could hardly love them more. Marshall boasts that these headphones can last up to 100 hours on one charge, an almost ludicrous number that has largely held up as I've use them. The audio quality, while not patch on the heavier hitters in the Bluetooth space, is excellent for its price point, with strong bass and clean high notes. Vocals can sometimes come off a little shabby at first blush, but I find you get used to it real quick. The connectivity performance has also really impressed me. For such a cheap set of headphones, the Major V easily maintains connections to at least two devices at a time and can switch between them almost seamlessly. That's not something I've found to be the case for a lot of the affordable Bluetooth headphones I've tried in the past. It's a strong contender overall in the budget Bluetooth headphones space. Best Prime Day Headphones Deals Prime Day means you don't have to pay full price for a great pair of headphones. Whether you prefer earbuds, headphones or something in between we've got Prime Day headphone deals for you. See Now Why does this deal matter? I was able to scoop up the Marshall Major V for $100, the lowest its price has gone since they debuted last year. For that price, it's basically a steal. For the amount of blissful use I've gotten out of them so far -- listening to music, watching movies or getting through my audiobooks -- it's been more than worth the price of admission. They usually retail for around $160, making their current price a 38% discount. While I was able to get this deal well in advance of Prime Day, there's no telling how long it'll stick around, so get a move on if you're interested in picking a pair up.
