RE: Driven: Porsche Panamera Turbo S

RE: Driven: Porsche Panamera Turbo S

Monday 12th September 2011

Driven: Porsche Panamera Turbo S

We go for a Highland fling in Porsche's hyper-fast four-door



I am not given, upon jumping out of a new car to be faced with an expectantly smiling PR type, to dribbling, gushing hyperbole. Even if it's good, I (attempt) to maintain at least the pretence of professional detachment. With the Panamera Turbo S, this is something I signally failed to do. And not because the Scottish Highland test route I had just finished covered some of the greatest driving roads on the British Isles.

No, the reason for my babbling over-excitement was because Porsche has surely employed some sort of alchemy to create the flagship version of its Panamera saloon. And I do mean witchcraft, rather than science, technology or engineering knowhow, because the Turbo S's pace, agility and general capability seems to defy explanation.


It does not, of course, actually defy the laws of physics, but it does seem to stretch them to their very limits, achieving feats of acceleration, handling and braking that are astonishing for a two-tonne, five-metre-long car.

Let's just look at a few of the choice numbers: 62mph comes up from rest in 3.8secs (that's McLaren or SLS territory right there), with a standing quarter-mile despatched in 11.8secs (in other words just 0.3secs off what an Audi R8 V10 can manage), while the big Porsche keeps going all the way to 190mph.

A total power output of 550hp helps with all this, as does a torque figure of 553lb ft (590lb ft is available on overboost), but the real key to the Panamera's stonking performance is its ability to make the absolute best use of all that power at any moment.


The Porsche Active Suspension Managment system, standard-fit on the Turbo S, does a fine job of tying the car's body to the road, controlling body movements without making the car unduly crashy (and thus limiting traction), while the Porsche Dynamic Chassis Control brings with it something very clever called torque vectoring. This acts as a kind of limited-slip diff-plus, not only sensing traction-limited wheels, but also pushing extra power to wheels it feels have more grip. The result is an uncommonly responsive machine, and one that seems surprisingly unruffled by the rivulets of water that cross-cross our soaked Highland test roads.

Oh, and lest we forget the fact that the turbos spool up 30 per cent more rapidly than they do in the non-S Turbo, making that extra 50hp seem more like 100hp at times.


Of course, the Turbo S also does all the other stuff that Panameras do well, meaning excellent stopping power from the (optional) carbon-ceramic brakes, interactive but not hyperactive feel from the steering wheel, and the sort of relaxed, surefooted handling confidence that you can only get from a wide, long-wheelbase car.

There's also that cabin, which might make somebody used to the buttonless minimalism of iDrive-era cabins feel a little dizzy, but which actually works amazingly effectively once you've got a handle on where all the various buttons, switches and knobs are (although the two rotary dials that control the stereo and sat-nav functions are still a wee bit fiddly. There's also a vague sense that you're sitting in the cockpit of a fighter plane, which is always a good thing.


If I were writing this for somebody like What Car?, however, I might at this point bring in the fact that, for almost bang on £20k less, you could drop your backside into a 'regular' Turbo, which is damn-near as fast, damn-near as capable and a whole heap easier on the wallet. The logic of that line of thought, mind, is that you might as well go for the diesel version, which is near-enough half the price. And if you're going to do that, well, however impressive the diesel Panamera is (and it is that, albeit a weeny bit underpowered) you're three-quarters of the way to an S-class diesel.

But this is PistonHeads, and we understand that such logical decisions do not always come easy to somebody with a 50 per cent petrol/blood mix. And anyway, the Panamera should be about more than just logic because, given the Turbo S's staggering, almost other-worldly ability, if you have the funds to add an S to the rump of your Panamera Turbo (and you aren't offended by the idiosyncratic looks), you just would. And good sense be damned.






Author
Discussion

Reardy Mister

13,757 posts

222 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
Pictures dont do these cars justice. I think theyre really unphotogenic. In the flesh though, I absolutely love them.

Any chance doing the l/100km - mpg conversion for us? Scrub that, found it. silly

Not that I'll be parking one in my drive any time soon ever, bar euromillions.

Zod

35,295 posts

258 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
I see loads of them. They look as bad to me in the metal as in the photos.

It's an impressive car, but just horrible.

British Beef

Original Poster:

2,210 posts

165 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
Very very impressive performance BUT still ugly and very expensive, especially compared to the new M5.

The new M5 looks better (IMO), will be more practical and is significantly cheaper.

If it drives as well then that will be 4-0 to BMW.

Riggers

1,859 posts

178 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
British Beef said:
Very very impressive performance BUT still ugly and very expensive, especially compared to the new M5.

The new M5 looks better (IMO), will be more practical and is significantly cheaper.

If it drives as well then that will be 4-0 to BMW.
Good points, all. Fortunately, we'll find out soon whether the new M5 is a belter or not (I know which way my money is going)...

slevin911

646 posts

176 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
god i love the panamera such a capable car!! m5 dosent come close.

kambites

67,552 posts

221 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
A very small point, but max payload 505kg? Really?

I'm sure it wont be a problem for the kind of use that the car will typically get, but I wonder why it's so low? Is there some country where a 2.5 tonne max payload is the legal limit for a category of licence or tax banding?


A mighty impressive car anyway, if you can live with the looks.

wackojacko

8,581 posts

190 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
Love the Panamera , would take one over a Rapide any day.

My Girlfriends dad has a Pan Turbo and that is suitably rapid and capable for a big 4 door saloon so I can only imagine the S is even better.


DVandrews

1,317 posts

283 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
<pedants corner>

riggers said:
I signally failed to do
Shurely Shome Mishtake.. I singly failed to do

</pedants corner>

Astonishing car though..

Dave

Edited by DVandrews on Monday 12th September 10:45

Lord_Colin

73 posts

194 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
IMO: its just one ugly very expenisve car, with pretty good performance figures .....
Cant wait, to see the new Lotus Eterne, I have seen it at the Paris Motorshow and even if it sounds tough to belive, it looks better than the AM Rapide. The Performance will be great anyway (4,8liter V8, 570-620bhp)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxggrS6O4i0

Dagnut

3,515 posts

193 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
The interior is not really the big for such a massive car..I don't see why anyone would have one over an AMG S class or even CLS

Riggers

1,859 posts

178 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
DVandrews said:
<pedants corner>

riggers said:
I signally failed to do
Shurely Shome Mishtake.. I singly failed to do

</pedants corner>

Astonishing car though..

Dave

Edited by DVandrews on Monday 12th September 10:45
Good efforts, but (unusually) we're right on this one:

The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English said:
sig‧nal‧ly formal
very noticeably:
The government has signally failed to deal with the problem.
smile

craigjm

17,940 posts

200 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
British Beef said:
Very very impressive performance BUT still ugly and very expensive, especially compared to the new M5.

The new M5 looks better (IMO), will be more practical and is significantly cheaper.

If it drives as well then that will be 4-0 to BMW.
The problem with the M5 though is that visually and interior fittings wise it is extremely similar to a standard 5 and there are masses of those around whereas people might buy the Porsche for its relative exclusivity as many people don't drive their cars anywhere near 10/10ths on the road

DVandrews

1,317 posts

283 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
Riggers, it could be either way.. that'll learn me..

Dave

r1ch

2,871 posts

196 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
Nice, really like the Panamera. I too think its much nicer in the flesh, always looks a bit awkward in pictures.

Johnboy Mac

2,666 posts

178 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
r1ch said:
Nice, really like the Panamera. I too think its much nicer in the flesh, always looks a bit awkward in pictures.
+1

The right colour would help too. I think the secret about this car is the way it drives, as pointed out in the artical. A luxobarge with supercar performance and handling/road holding that's on a different level to a 7 Series or S-Class, and considering that it was designed to compete with those two, I'd have the Porsche all day long. As for comparing it to the new M5, different horses & different courses, me thinks.



Edited by Johnboy Mac on Monday 12th September 12:37

RichardR

2,892 posts

268 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
IMHO the biggest visual challenge with the Panamera has always been the massive and ungainly rear lights. While the overall shape could never be called elegant, I think it would be a lot easier on the eye with a neater rear treatment. scratchchin

Mind you, I do like that striking blue in the side on shot!

toppstuff

13,698 posts

247 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
A good review of a truly magnificent car.

Magnificent? Yes. Absolutely. It is a staggering achievement that a mass-produced luxurious barge is capable of such immense performance, all while cosseting and pampering its passengers.

Aston, maserati etc, are so off the pace here it is laughable. Ignore the Top Gear-esque nonsense about soul and the look of the car ( which is entirely subjective anyway). This thing has the performance and ability to crush any saloon car currently available. And it can seat 4 people very comfortably indeed.

I think only a Mercedes S65 AMG comes close for it's intended purpose.

It is a tool. A weapon. If the military had have a car that would carry 4 people at high speed in comfort across country - this is what it would end up like.

It is utterly efficient. Clinical. Purposeful. And amazing for all those reasons.

One of these in a simple grey colour with espresso leather for me. Don't clean it. Let it be dirty and unobtrusive. Cool as can be.

Lord_Colin

73 posts

194 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
There is a big Mistake here: I drive a Cayenne Turbo S, since 2007. A few months ago, I tested the Panamera Turbo, for a weekend.
You just CANT compare this car to a S Class, 7 series, Audi S8 or any other big Limo.
The reasons:
The seating postion in the front is much Porsche 911, than Limousine feeling.
The space in the back is not anywere close to one of the before mentioned Limousines!!
You want find room for your legs, especially on the side and if the driver is more than 185cm, than you have no comfort at all in the Panamera.
The ride is comfortable, but not anyware close to a 7series, S Class or Audi S8 Limousine.

The Panamera is a Sportscar with 4 doors and some space to sit in the back. Nothing more.
It will never work as a family saloon!


toppstuff

13,698 posts

247 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
Lord_Colin said:
There is a big Mistake here: I drive a Cayenne Turbo S, since 2007. A few months ago, I tested the Panamera Turbo, for a weekend.
You just CANT compare this car to a S Class, 7 series, Audi S8 or any other big Limo.
The reasons:
The seating postion in the front is much Porsche 911, than Limousine feeling.
The space in the back is not anywere close to one of the before mentioned Limousines!!
You want find room for your legs, especially on the side and if the driver is more than 185cm, than you have no comfort at all in the Panamera.
The ride is comfortable, but not anyware close to a 7series, S Class or Audi S8 Limousine.

The Panamera is a Sportscar with 4 doors and some space to sit in the back. Nothing more.
It will never work as a family saloon!
It is NOT a limo. It was never intended as one.

I am 180cm tall. I can sit comfortably behind the driver's seat when it is set to fit me.

I certainly found the Panamera at least as comfortable as the Cayenne.

Maybe an Alpina B7 could match it - but do they offer a LWB? If not, then AMG S class L is better for you. But I would feel like a chaffeur driving the S class... not good.

Dagnut

3,515 posts

193 months

Monday 12th September 2011
quotequote all
Lord_Colin said:
There is a big Mistake here: I drive a Cayenne Turbo S, since 2007. A few months ago, I tested the Panamera Turbo, for a weekend.
You just CANT compare this car to a S Class, 7 series, Audi S8 or any other big Limo.
The reasons:
The seating postion in the front is much Porsche 911, than Limousine feeling.
The space in the back is not anywere close to one of the before mentioned Limousines!!
You want find room for your legs, especially on the side and if the driver is more than 185cm, than you have no comfort at all in the Panamera.
The ride is comfortable, but not anyware close to a 7series, S Class or Audi S8 Limousine.

The Panamera is a Sportscar with 4 doors and some space to sit in the back. Nothing more.
It will never work as a family saloon!
You have to wonder why they didn't just make a Saloon..they could of knocked of 250kg and made genuine room for 5