RE: Porsche rolls out 680hp wagon

RE: Porsche rolls out 680hp wagon

Tuesday 26th September 2017

Porsche rolls out 680hp wagon

Panamera Sport Turismo equivalent of the Turbo S E-Hybrid is good for 192mph



No-one needs convincing about the earthy, good-time appeal of fast wagons. Being able to accelerate 20 bags of ballast up to 100mph in less than 10 seconds is about as frivolous as equipping your box bedroom with a set of B&W Nautilus speakers; no it isn't strictly necessary - but that won't stop it sounding remarkable.

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.

Author
Discussion

em177

Original Poster:

3,127 posts

163 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
Queue the pages and pages of arguing over what a shooting brake is hehe

E65Ross

34,941 posts

211 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
That's certainly a lot of grunt....although an estate car without additional luggage space because of the batteries seems a bit daft?

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....

kambites

67,460 posts

220 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
em177 said:
Queue the pages and pages of arguing over what a shooting brake is hehe
That's easy, the answer is "a marketing term". smile

PhantomPH

4,043 posts

224 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
kambites said:
em177 said:
Queue the pages and pages of arguing over what a shooting brake is hehe
That's easy, the answer is "a marketing term". smile
Also it's 'cue', not 'queue'. hth

hondansx

4,562 posts

224 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
I read about this in EVO; 300kg and I think they said the lbs/ft per ton actually decreases versus the normal Turbo S as a result. Understandably, the extra also ruined it.

Pass!

F1GTRUeno

6,333 posts

217 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
All Panameras should look like that.

Equus

16,766 posts

100 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
em177 said:
Queue the pages and pages of arguing over what a shooting brake is hehe
Well, judging by the rear door positions on that photo, my pointer wouldn't be best impressed if I shoved him in the boot with a bunch of shotguns and the beater's spaniel.

Not much of an estate car, by the look of it - more a common-or-garden hatchback?

bertie

8,545 posts

283 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
E65Ross said:
That's certainly a lot of grunt....although an estate car without additional luggage space because of the batteries seems a bit daft?

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....
Because torque is what accelerates a car, power is just a function of torque x rpm.

So torque to weight is the measure of acceleration.

Nors

1,291 posts

154 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
Next RS7 is reputedly going to have this set up with over 700bhp.

Ares

11,000 posts

119 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
The latest Panamera is the best looking without question.

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!


AshD

216 posts

248 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
It seems like it's just a stepping stone to the etron (or whatever it's called).

If you're chasing 0-60 times just head over to the Tesla shop for a P100D.


E65Ross

34,941 posts

211 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
bertie said:
E65Ross said:
That's certainly a lot of grunt....although an estate car without additional luggage space because of the batteries seems a bit daft?

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....
Because torque is what accelerates a car, power is just a function of torque x rpm.

So torque to weight is the measure of acceleration.
No it isn't, power is what accelerates a car. Why then, for example, is a BMW M3 E92 with under 300lb ft of torque faster accelerating than a 330d, which has more torque but less power?

Or why is a B7 Audi RS4 faster accelerating than a 3.0 tdi A4?

turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
E65Ross said:
bertie said:
E65Ross said:
That's certainly a lot of grunt....although an estate car without additional luggage space because of the batteries seems a bit daft?

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....
Because torque is what accelerates a car, power is just a function of torque x rpm.

So torque to weight is the measure of acceleration.
No it isn't, power is what accelerates a car. Why then, for example, is a BMW M3 E92 with under 300lb ft of torque faster accelerating than a 330d, which has more torque but less power?

Or why is a B7 Audi RS4 faster accelerating than a 3.0 tdi A4?
Does each of those car pairs have the same mass, and the same gearing?

E65Ross

34,941 posts

211 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
E65Ross said:
bertie said:
E65Ross said:
That's certainly a lot of grunt....although an estate car without additional luggage space because of the batteries seems a bit daft?

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....
Because torque is what accelerates a car, power is just a function of torque x rpm.

So torque to weight is the measure of acceleration.
No it isn't, power is what accelerates a car. Why then, for example, is a BMW M3 E92 with under 300lb ft of torque faster accelerating than a 330d, which has more torque but less power?

Or why is a B7 Audi RS4 faster accelerating than a 3.0 tdi A4?
Does each of those car pairs have the same mass, and the same gearing?
If it's not about power, and about torque, then gearing shouldn't matter wink

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.

kambites

67,460 posts

220 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
Torque is indeed what determines acceleration - torque at the wheels. However modern cars have this new-fangled torque multiplying device called a "gearbox" which means torque at the wheels at a given speed is proportional to flywheel torque multiplied by engine speed... or power as it's otherwise known.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 26th September 16:01

turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

E65Ross

34,941 posts

211 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Just checked, 330d has 520NM for 1650kgs. E92 M3 has 400NM for 1655kgs. Almost identical mass.....so can you explain why the one with over 20% less torque is considerably quicker, if power doesn't have anything to do with it. As Kambites above said....it's torque at the wheels and, ultimately, down to power.

Notanotherturbo

494 posts

206 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
Just when you thought Porsches couldn't get any uglier :0)

scenario8

6,554 posts

178 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
300 kilos really is a lot to carry around in addition to the other two odd tonnes. Is this really the way forward?

turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

Tuesday 26th September 2017
quotequote all
E65Ross said:
turbobloke said:
Just checked, 330d has 520NM for 1650kgs. E92 M3 has 400NM for 1655kgs. Almost identical mass.....so can you explain why the one with over 20% less torque is considerably quicker, if power doesn't have anything to do with it. As Kambites above said....it's torque at the wheels and, ultimately, down to power.
Acceleration isn't ultimately down to power and I don't think that's what kambites said.

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?

Link said:
... if our goal is maximum acceleration, you can go about it two ways: either increase the force (torque) applied by the engine and transmission, or decrease the mass the engine has to move (your car). Power really only applies to speed. A car with higher power can achieve higher speeds...
Correctly this identifies torque, gearing (transmission) and mass.

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.