Porsche rolls out 680hp wagon
Panamera Sport Turismo equivalent of the Turbo S E-Hybrid is good for 192mph
Which brings us to the Sport Turismo, Porsche's beguiling idea of an estate car for the have-lots. Before today it was already possible to have the model in Turbo format, meaning that you could have it with the granular splendor of a 550hp V8 and all-wheel drive - a combination good for 3.8 seconds to 62mph and a top speed of 188mph.
But Stuttgart apparently feels it can do better. Or at least it can do quicker. For the trifling matter of an additional £30k or so, it'll now remove some of the luggage space you previously paid for and replace it with 14kWh lithium-ion batteries that power a 136hp electric motor - giving you a potential system output of 680hp, and a 0-62mph time of 3.4 seconds.
Yes, that's as fast as a 911 GT3. And significantly quicker than the existing E-Hybrid model, which obviously doesn't benefit from the V8's largesse. It'll also manage (Porsche claims) 31 miles under battery power alone, and can summon up a planet-spinning 627lb ft of torque from 1,400rpm.
So, Nautilus-spec then? Well, yes and no. Certainly the car has on-paper bragging rights over the Turbo, but it also inevitably piles on the plug-in hybrid pounds. The saloon version was more than 300kg heavier than the Turbo so expect a similar weight gain in the Sport Turismo; a penalty almost certain to scupper the car's torque-to-weight ratio when compared to the conventionally driven equivalent.
Then there's the placement of those batteries, stuck behind the rear axle line and reportedly the reason why the saloon's handling on the limit was somewhat compromised at launch. Don't expect the Sport Turismo's heftier rump to improve that scenario or live up to the entirely misleading NEDC combined claim of 97.4mpg either.
Still, 680hp is 680hp. And for as long as the charge lasts, that's more than a Lamborghini Huracan. More even than a Ferrari 488. And enough to briefly have your cargo/golf clubs/dog up the road quicker than just about anything shy of a Saturn V rocket. If that thought appeals, and we can't persuade you to buy the lighter V8-only version, the Panamera Turbo S E-Hybrid Sport Turismo is on sale now.
Also.....torque-to-weight ratio? WTF? That's an utterly meaningless measurement, one car may have a much higher torque-to-weight ratio than another car, but have lower power-to-weight.....it won't be faster, it would be slower....
Not much of an estate car, by the look of it - more a common-or-garden hatchback?
Also.....torque-to-weight ratio? WTF? That's an utterly meaningless measurement, one car may have a much higher torque-to-weight ratio than another car, but have lower power-to-weight.....it won't be faster, it would be slower....
So torque to weight is the measure of acceleration.
But killer for the hybrids (ditto the Cayenne) is the weight penalty, and with this, the space loss.
Pal has just picked up a Cayenne hybrid. He saves £300/mth on tax, but is still regretting the swap from a normal Cayenne as he never remembers to charge the battery, charging on the go screws fuel consumption and the car is even heavier....and it doesn't have DAB!
Also.....torque-to-weight ratio? WTF? That's an utterly meaningless measurement, one car may have a much higher torque-to-weight ratio than another car, but have lower power-to-weight.....it won't be faster, it would be slower....
So torque to weight is the measure of acceleration.
Or why is a B7 Audi RS4 faster accelerating than a 3.0 tdi A4?
Also.....torque-to-weight ratio? WTF? That's an utterly meaningless measurement, one car may have a much higher torque-to-weight ratio than another car, but have lower power-to-weight.....it won't be faster, it would be slower....
So torque to weight is the measure of acceleration.
Or why is a B7 Audi RS4 faster accelerating than a 3.0 tdi A4?
Also.....torque-to-weight ratio? WTF? That's an utterly meaningless measurement, one car may have a much higher torque-to-weight ratio than another car, but have lower power-to-weight.....it won't be faster, it would be slower....
So torque to weight is the measure of acceleration.
Or why is a B7 Audi RS4 faster accelerating than a 3.0 tdi A4?
Masses are very similar, hence I chose them. certainly not different enough to offset the difference in speeds.
OK.....how about a 335i of similar vintage being less torquey than the 330d, yet it's still faster.
To make a decent i.e. fair comparison of acceleration the least we need to know about is torque (ideally the shape of the curve rather than just max torque), gearing, mass and if the acceleration endpoint is a relatively high speed e.g. 0-100 or quarter mile then power too. That said if we know the torque curve we know the power curve so given any particular rpm we know power.
I take it you read the accurate content at the link?
To show how power is not the ultimate decider, consider this thought experiment involving a lightweight car with adjustable power output. If the driver increases power by 1 bhp at all rpm but adds dead weight (mass, in fact) to double the original mass then it will result in far slower acceleration despite having more power. It's no use moaning about the measly 1 bhp because if power was what mattered most then the acceleration should increase even if it's by a minuscule amount in spite of the mass increase.
If the mass is kept the same but the gearing is altered then for the same power setting the car will accelerate from rest better with lower gearing even if the power is kept the same. If power was the determining factor then we should see the same acceleration regardless of gearing when the power is the same, which is plainly wrong.
Another result of gearing is the number of gear changes needed to reach (say) 60 or 62 or 100 mph. Acceleration figures will change even if the power doesn't change.
Torque, mass and gearing matter most. Top speed is a power thing and this was also correctly pointed out at the links.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff