RE: PH Fleet: Porsche Panamera Diesel

[toppstuff]

squirejo said:

Perhaps the reason it is only a 4seater is to sell you a cayenne diesel instead,a car about which most points of this panamera review are also true!

In fairness, thats not a bad point. The Cayenne can do most of the things the Panamera can, and a few things it can't.

[Chris Harris]

andyps said:

So the problem with the Jag was an iPhone which had nothing to do with Jaguar? Strange complaint. Maybe it will turn out there is a problem with Nike shoes which ruin the way the Porsche feels.

I am sure the Panamera is a very accomplished car and a great tourer, but the compromised looks would mean it very unlikely to be on my wish list at any time.

Good to know a petrolhead can get on with a diesel I guess, but would it be as satisfying if it was the only car you had? Chris is lucky enough to have a 599 and access to all sorts of other cars for the type of blast that only a petrol is likely to give. For many people it would be the only car they would drive a lot of the time - how would it be then? Genuinely interested to know the answer to that, and it is something which I often think when magazines discuss long term test cars (not that long term means long term in relation to many owners).

Probably best to read all the reports on the Jag before getting too pithy. There were many less than resolved aspects of the Jag - all of which were listed.

Don't know my exact annual mileage, but it's in the 60-80k area, so I'll spend enough time in it.

If it was my only car, I'd be over the moon right now.

[Chris Harris]

Cacatous said:

Should be "pedant's paradise".

Can't believe it took that long for someone to spot it!

[squirejo]

toppstuff said:

squirejo said:

Perhaps the reason it is only a 4seater is to sell you a cayenne diesel instead,a car about which most points of this panamera review are also true!

In fairness, thats not a bad point. The Cayenne can do most of the things the Panamera can, and a few things it can't.

Although there's still a scale problem- many mainly buyers like to have a 7 seat option. Not available on a cayenne.

Perhaps they need an ever bigger car then, rather than a Cajun.........on second thoughts, nah.

[seawise]

squirejo said:

Although there's still a scale problem- many mainly buyers like to have a 7 seat option. Not available on a cayenne.

Perhaps they need an ever bigger car then, rather than a Cajun.........on second thoughts, nah.

if you are prepared to accept the bulk (both weight and sheer size) of an SUV i personally would like the option of seven seats, thus a Disco4. The sheer size and bulk of a Panamera but only 4 seats strikes me a bi silly really, but no worries one lost sale could be another gained from someone who doesn't want three seats abreast in the rear cabin.

[jhoneyball]

Chris Harris said:

It makes sense. Its torque output is large compared to its power output.

Which clearly shows you dont understand torque or power, and the essentially artificial mathematical relationship between them

[Chris Harris]

jhoneyball said:

Which clearly shows you dont understand torque or power, and the essentially artificial mathematical relationship between them

It shows that I care about describing the way a car performs.

[Chrisw666]

Chris Harris said:

It shows that I care about describing the way a car performs.

True, but you can't review cars based on the things that normal people understand you have to now write a secondary review with graphs and cut-away engineering diagrams.

Did you not get the memo?

[jhoneyball]

But there's no need to dress it up with fake physics. Only makes you look stupid, sorry.

And yes I have a bee in my bonnet about torque and power, only because there is a whole magazine/tv industry out there which seems happy to wallow in its own ignorance on the matter. LJK Setright is doubtless spinning in his grave.

Do sone research, and you will find that power is a meaningless fiction of the marketing people. Then be my hero by writing about it *properly*.

Please? :-)

[whitevancam]

As Chris Harris likes some good man maths I thought I'd throw this into the mix....

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3813909.htm

£59k M5, 20 mpg, Petrol £1.36 ltr ish, £0-3085/mile

£66k Pan ( as tested ) 40 mpg, Diesel £1.41 ltr ish, £0-16/mile

So you would hve to drive 47k miles before your Diesel became cheaper.......

( I know you would have to stop for fuel more often on a long journey to south of Germany but imagine the fun you could have when you get there )

Edited by whitevancam on Monday 20th August 15:35

[E38Ross]

Chris Harris said:

jhoneyball said:

Which clearly shows you dont understand torque or power, and the essentially artificial mathematical relationship between them

It shows that I care about describing the way a car performs.

How does quoting a torque figure do that then? The E46 330d had more torque than an E92 M3 but it was never anywhere near as quick, even when not revving the titanium off the M3.

[Chris Harris]

jhoneyball said:

But there's no need to dress it up with fake physics. Only makes you look stupid, sorry.

And yes I have a bee in my bonnet about torque and power, only because there is a whole magazine/tv industry out there which seems happy to wallow in its own ignorance on the matter. LJK Setright is doubtless spinning in his grave.

Do sone research, and you will find that power is a meaningless fiction of the marketing people. Then be my hero by writing about it *properly*.

Please? :-)

So you expect me to reinvent the vernacular of car-description overnight? Do me a favour: this is classic pedantry. I can't stand it when people say bored 'by' as opposed to bored 'with' - spelling 'some' correctly is another sundry gripe come to mention it - but I don't roam the internet vaguely offending people with my affliction.

The common understanding of the words 'power' and 'torque' may no longer fit the physicist's definition of them, and I can completely see why someone with your clearly expert knowledge of the subject finds that infuriating, but that doesn't render those words any less useful for descriptive purposes. It's not fake physics, it's contorted semantics.

So, when I say a car's torque output is high compared to its power output, you know that i mean - in the case of the Panam Diesel - that it has heaps more step-off acceleration and low-rpm torque than the V6 petrol equivalent. I refer to that thrust from under 1000rpm as 'torque' because that is the accepted vocabulary of this trade and the wider community.

I suspect most things about me would have LJKS spinning, but that's just life.

[Chris Harris]

E38Ross said:

How does quoting a torque figure do that then? The E46 330d had more torque than an E92 M3 but it was never anywhere near as quick, even when not revving the titanium off the M3.

The torque figure does give a very good indication of what is best described as the 'low-effort' performance of a car.

[ess]

excel monkey said:

Harris said:

I specifically asked for the small wheels

Right choice!

One would argue that the PanAm looks even better with the smaller 18" option.

[red997]

for those that don't 'get' what Chris is saying re torque / power etc, I'd suggest driving one.
What he has described conveys pretty accurately IMHO what the car is like to drive.

As for the KN doing what the Pana can but less;
yes, in a way. But not with the same driving dynamics.
But you can get 3 adults in the rear.
(yes I have a new KN.
My major gripe with the pana is the boot size - which is a shame cos with four of us going away for the weekend it was rammed ( ok, ok, the missus & two teenage daughters....they don't pack light, but it was an easy fit in the KN)

[Mermaid]

Whilst at a Porsche dealer and chatting to a couple of managers, both mentioned this the Porsche they wanted to drive most days.

[Rickpw1]

My local Porsche dealer lent me one of these when they serviced my Cayenne. I thought it was a fantastic car and basically spent the day driving it because it was such a pleasant drive. The engine is an Audi engine and mounted too low down I believe to allow for PDK but the gear change was still excellent. (I have had Audis with DSG and still think that is the best gearbox around). I am just waiting for 2nd hand prices to drop and would seriously consider owning one; much better consumption that a 4.8 Cayenne... 19mpg on average

[jhoneyball]

Chris Harris said:

The torque figure does give a very good indication of what is best described as the 'low-effort' performance of a car.

Hand meets forehead. Sorry, I'll shut up now. This is pathetic.

[excel monkey]

whitevancam said:

As Chris Harris likes some good man maths I thought I'd throw this into the mix....

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3813909.htm

£59k M5, 20 mpg, Petrol £1.36 ltr ish, £0-3085/mile

£66k Pan ( as tested ) 40 mpg, Diesel £1.41 ltr ish, £0-16/mile

So you would hve to drive 47k miles before your Diesel became cheaper......

How do those figures stack up when you compare the Panamera to a brand new M5?

Admittedly, that ex-demo M5 looks like a very good deal given the mileage and spec.

[British Beef]

whitevancam said:

As Chris Harris likes some good man maths I thought I'd throw this into the mix....

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/3813909.htm

£59k M5, 20 mpg, Petrol £1.36 ltr ish, £0-3085/mile

£66k Pan ( as tested ) 40 mpg, Diesel £1.41 ltr ish, £0-16/mile

So you would hve to drive 47k miles before your Diesel became cheaper.......

( I know you would have to stop for fuel more often on a long journey to south of Germany but imagine the fun you could have when you get there )

Edited by whitevancam on Monday 20th August 15:35

GOOD CALL !!!!!!

Even new for new they are comparable (with a few options ticked on the Pan to level to the standard spec on the M5).

No brainer, M5, M5, M5! It looks better, goes better, sounds better, more practical. Trumps the Panamera in every department, apart from the tiny issue of economy ;-)