RE: PH Fleet: Porsche Panamera Diesel
Discussion
FWDRacer said:
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..
Touche 
Next Harris will be using his simian charms to wax lyrically and proclaim this is a better and prettier car than the Jag.
Seriously? Credibility on the slide.
Mr. Harry Metcalfe of Evo Magazine really love this car as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FQGwYgkY5I
I like this car (the diesel version). They got tons more presence IRL than on pictures. A little big, though, and that is my personal deal breaker (I can't afford it, but I don't dream about it either because it's just too big for tight and nasty European city roads and parking spaces).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FQGwYgkY5I
I like this car (the diesel version). They got tons more presence IRL than on pictures. A little big, though, and that is my personal deal breaker (I can't afford it, but I don't dream about it either because it's just too big for tight and nasty European city roads and parking spaces).
excel monkey said:
Bill Carr said:
toppstuff said:
Itsallicanafford said:
Its Desirable, it has premium product stamped all over it, but is it really a good looking object?
Yes. I can't think of any other genuinely spacious 4 seat, 4 door up market saloon that equals it. I would echo the comments suggesting that the "shooting-brake", if it ever arrives, is likely to be better looking. Could it be worse?
jhoneyball said:
Hand meets forehead. Sorry, I'll shut up now. This is pathetic.
You really don't understand what he's getting at with regards to the torque comment?jhoneyball said:
power is a meaningless fiction
Its not though is it? Its quite an accurate representation of performance.If I'm missing something, I would genuinely like to see a fresh thread explaining your reasoning.
Rickpw1 said:
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
Is this the one you Curbed the wheel on Rick?!?!!excel monkey said:
ow 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.
You can't compare it with a new M5 as the price of the M5 is higher and it is more expensive to run so it would never be cheaper even with man maths.Admittedly, that ex-demo M5 looks like a very good deal given the mileage and spec.
You could go even further with the man maths.......
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/4084606.htm
20k miles E63 with Performance Pack, like new £42k
If we said 17mpg, petrol £1-36/ltr ish, £0-363/mile to run
£66k Pan ( as tested ) vs £42k E63 with 20k on the clock.
In this example you would have to do 112k miles in the Pan Diesel before the better economy started to pay!!
British Beef said:
Has he publicly announced his new sponsorship deal with the VW group yet??
No, but if you submit your evidence to support that statement, and send me your lawyer's details, we can begin discussions.I'm all up for banter chaps, and as you can tell I have pretty thick skin, but if you want to publicly accuse me of stuff like this, then I'll f**king fight you for it.
More than happy to discuss the Panamera Diesel - that being the reason for this thread - surprising and excellent car that it is.
Chris Harris said:
British Beef said:
Has he publicly announced his new sponsorship deal with the VW group yet??
No, but if you submit your evidence to support that statement, and send me your lawyer's details, we can begin discussions.I'm all up for banter chaps, and as you can tell I have pretty thick skin, but if you want to publicly accuse me of stuff like this, then I'll f**king fight you for it.
More than happy to discuss the Panamera Diesel - that being the reason for this thread - surprising and excellent car that it is.
Chris Harris said:
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. 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? :-)
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.
Under 1k rpm? When would you ever drive a car at that? When you say more torque than power, you're almost exclusively talking about diesels because they produce more torque, but it's cancelled out by not revving as high.
It would be far more useful if people talked in percentage of max rpm, then a turbo petrol is way closer to a turbo diesel.
If peak torque figures without noting rpm is your way of describing how an engine is low down... And 405 is a lot, I guess the E60 M5 is a similar experience
That's a little tongue in cheek, mind but surely you get my point? I understand where you're coming from, though. But at what rpm does it produce over 400lb ft, and what is the red line?
Edited by E38Ross on Monday 20th August 16:48
Edited by E38Ross on Monday 20th August 16:49
well its a car that certainly has grown on my still not sure about the rear but then again didn't much like the 928..BUT..why not choose the Cayenne Diesel, i bought mine fully speced and only paid 55k it does around 40 mpg on uk journeys or when i drive to switzerland does 36mpg...i even towed my caterham to brands hatch and back on a trailer and it did 31 mpg.
Its so comfortable great long distance cruiser and pretty nippy to overall i would definatly recomend the cayenne diesel over the panamera as its also 4wd.
buy one and you will be hooked!
Its so comfortable great long distance cruiser and pretty nippy to overall i would definatly recomend the cayenne diesel over the panamera as its also 4wd.
buy one and you will be hooked!
jhoneyball said:
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. A car with 500bhp and 500 ft/lb of torque will be able to go faster than one with 100bhp and 100 ft/lb of torque, I'm sure nobody will argue with that either.
A car with 250bhp and 500 ft/lb of torque will 'feel' quick to the average motorist when compared to one with 300bhp and 200ft/lb of torque at the parts of the rev range where the torque is produced, regardless of whether the car with the higher BHP is actually faster when driven hard.
I understand that the above isn't the full story, but surely you can accept that to the majority of people it will stand as a reasonable way to compare what the two numbers mean to a driver.
In the Panamera it means that the engine doesn't need to work hard for the car to make reasonable progress, which is also why (along with economy) for an awful lot of people for whom the car is a device and not a source of pleasure diesel is increasing in popularity as the fuel of choice. I'm by no means a diesel fan boy but I don't see the need to be overly picky about an article that has been clearly written to suggest that the torque produced by this car goes some way to offset what is on paper a fairly mundane car to be wearing a Porsche badge.
A big issue occurred to me that we are letting go without Chris offering comment..
Now if I had 3 kids, Mrs TS would simply not accept the reasoning for a practical car that only allowed the family to go out with 2 of the kids.
Choosing which child to leave behind would be a source of some marital stress. And apparently its even against some kind of law. It's one of the reasons why I sometimes prefer dogs to children ( oh the joys of internet anonymity !) but it does make one question the Chris Harris decision making progress.
Taking the family out is a binary process when you have children. They either all come with you, or none of them come with you and drive alone. The Panamera is therefore no more practical than a 911, surely?
How does Chris rationalise this and convince himself that he would not have been better off with a BMW 530D Touring? Or did his favourite Porsche salesmen bamboozle him?
We need to be told.
Now if I had 3 kids, Mrs TS would simply not accept the reasoning for a practical car that only allowed the family to go out with 2 of the kids.
Choosing which child to leave behind would be a source of some marital stress. And apparently its even against some kind of law. It's one of the reasons why I sometimes prefer dogs to children ( oh the joys of internet anonymity !) but it does make one question the Chris Harris decision making progress.
Taking the family out is a binary process when you have children. They either all come with you, or none of them come with you and drive alone. The Panamera is therefore no more practical than a 911, surely?
How does Chris rationalise this and convince himself that he would not have been better off with a BMW 530D Touring? Or did his favourite Porsche salesmen bamboozle him?
We need to be told.
E38Ross said:
Under 1k rpm? When would you ever drive a car at that? When you say more torque than power, you're almost exclusively talking about diesels because they produce more torque, but it's cancelled out by not revving as high.
It would be far more useful if people talked in percentage of max rpm, then a turbo petrol is way closer to a turbo diesel.
If peak torque figures without noting rpm is your way of describing how an engine is low down... And 405 is a lot, I guess the E60 M5 is a similar experience
That's a little tongue in cheek, mind but surely you get my point? I understand where you're coming from, though. But at what rpm does it produce over 400lb ft, and what is the red line?
I get your point, but within the confines of a word count you just have to get the message across. Yes, it should be qualified by stating revs etc, sometime you try to use adjectives and people don't like it.It would be far more useful if people talked in percentage of max rpm, then a turbo petrol is way closer to a turbo diesel.
If peak torque figures without noting rpm is your way of describing how an engine is low down... And 405 is a lot, I guess the E60 M5 is a similar experience
That's a little tongue in cheek, mind but surely you get my point? I understand where you're coming from, though. But at what rpm does it produce over 400lb ft, and what is the red line?
Edited by E38Ross on Monday 20th August 16:48
Edited by E38Ross on Monday 20th August 16:49
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff