Panamera Diseasel

[Mosdef]

ORD said:

£2k a year for something you don't really want is a lot of money. If the petrol engines were exquisite, then I would pay it. But their fairly standard turbo lumps, aren't they? Not much different to a diesel.

I expect the FI 6 cylinder engines are nowhere near as characterful as the V8 was (and still is if you buy the GTS, the only NA engine left in the range).

The £2k figure is quite spurious given the consumption of both engines. I would imagine a few hundred pounds of fuel is more realistic, before depreciation is considered.

[red997]

if you think that the turbo lumps are ordinary, I suggest you haven't driven one;

I can certainly say that my Turbo Pana wasn't ordinary
0-190 in less than a mile, from a standing start ?

Paul - yes, the GT3 is awesome... don't think I'll get that MPG when it makes it to a track !

[ORD]

red997 said:

if you think that the turbo lumps are ordinary, I suggest you haven't driven one;

I can certainly say that my Turbo Pana wasn't ordinary
0-190 in less than a mile, from a standing start ?

Paul - yes, the GT3 is awesome... don't think I'll get that MPG when it makes it to a track !

Character isn't measured in performance numbers. The Golf R engine produces lots of power, for example, but is dull beyond compare. The M3 engine is also brutally dull. I don't like turbo lumps. They may as well be diesels (not quite, but you get the drift).

[red997]

going to have to agree to disagree on this one !
I've had loads of turbo diesels, a few turbo petrols (still have one) but the Pana turbo had lots of character - IMHO

[ORD]

red997 said:

going to have to agree to disagree on this one !
I've had loads of turbo diesels, a few turbo petrols (still have one) but the Pana turbo had lots of character - IMHO

Fair enough. I haven't driven it so am only guessing