Porsche Taycan - first 'drivers' EV?
Discussion
Witchfinder said:
TheDeuce said:
I can appreciate what it takes to run the ring in under 8 seconds...
The Millennium Falcon?TheDeuce said:
This is more than I hoped the car would cost, and way more than I originally expected to spend on an EV.
But seriously though, I hope you can afford your dream. I think the Turbo S is unnecessary, and as long as you're judicious with the options list, it need not be absolutely ruinous.
The base 'turbo' doesn't want for very much so far as options go. My ideal spec is £128k (12k ish options) on the configurator which compared to most Porsche models specced the same way is oddly quite modest.
I'll probably end up with fewer options than my ideal still.
Gandahar said:
RobDickinson said:
Gandahar said:
Just as a note on badges on the back of cars.
Tesla P100d does not have a diesel engine.
Taycan Turbo S does not have a turbo.
d though doesnt have to stand for diesel and in this case stands for dual motor Tesla P100d does not have a diesel engine.
Taycan Turbo S does not have a turbo.
turbo doesnt stand for anything other than marketing bs.
Turbo and Turbo S used to stand for turbo and turbo uprated, now it doesn't
90 and 110 used to stand for number of inches in the Defender wheel base, now it doesn't ... it's marketing bulls
t.How is turbo S on a Porsche less marketing bs than 90 or 110 on the new Defender?
"D" can obviously mean anything. Just beacuse it historically has meant diesel doesn't mean it can't legitimately be repurposed for "Deluxe", "Dual Motor" (in the case of Tesla), "Delorean" or whatever.
"Turbo" is short for turbocharged. It has no other meaning. Putting "Turbo" on a car that doesn't have a turbocharger fitted to it is disingenuous, pure and simple.
Quite why Porsche have done it is a mystery to me, I can only surmise that it's something to do with the "overboost" feature that the car apparently has, although "overboost" itself is a word I wouldn't imagine seeing outside of a turbocharger context.
No one is going to lose any sleep over it, but it is pretty ridiculous if Porsche felt like they had to or wanted to do it so as not to confuse Panamera Turbo or 911 Turbo owners thinking they're buying an inferior car or something.
TheDeuce said:
What bias? I have never wanted a Porsche before, almost the opposite to be honest. And my comments about affordability are related to the UK BIK cut to 0%, which makes any EV unbelievably affordable relative to anything else in the same performance bracket.
Maybe bias is strong, but you've been gushing about the car quite a bit whilst comparing others unfavourably from the get-go. I got the sense that you'd already made the decision to buy one from the opening post and were just looking for validation. No big deal though, each to their own etc.Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 11th September 12:44
Durzel said:
"Turbo" is short for turbocharged. It has no other meaning. Putting "Turbo" on a car that doesn't have a turbocharger fitted to it is disingenuous, pure and simple.
Quite why Porsche have done it is a mystery to me, I can only surmise that it's something to do with the "overboost" feature that the car apparently has, although "overboost" itself is a word I wouldn't imagine seeing outside of a turbocharger context.
No one is going to lose any sleep over it, but it is pretty ridiculous if Porsche felt like they had to or wanted to do it so as not to confuse Panamera Turbo or 911 Turbo owners thinking they're buying an inferior car or something.
In Porsche-land, where (almost) all 911s are turbocharged but not all 911s are 911 Turbos, clearly whatever the badge is meant to convey it is not how the engine is aspirated.Quite why Porsche have done it is a mystery to me, I can only surmise that it's something to do with the "overboost" feature that the car apparently has, although "overboost" itself is a word I wouldn't imagine seeing outside of a turbocharger context.
No one is going to lose any sleep over it, but it is pretty ridiculous if Porsche felt like they had to or wanted to do it so as not to confuse Panamera Turbo or 911 Turbo owners thinking they're buying an inferior car or something.
Manufacturers have been putting the word Turbo on things without a turbocharger for years to suggest performance and it's always been Porsche's way of differentiating their top level cars so I see no issue with it personally.
Heritage is important. De-badging takes seconds if you really don't like it
Heritage is important. De-badging takes seconds if you really don't like it
Witchfinder said:
Those of us old enough to remember it will recall "turbo" buttons on PCs, usually those packing a 286, 386, or 486 CPU. It's arguable that turbo is now a generic term for a thing that enhances performance.
It's a good point - I imagine that at least half the people writing comments on YT or forums mocking the 'Turbo' thing are using a device or computer that has some form of 'turbo' mode or hardware description In a way it IS disingenuous to use on a car, as a car is a place where you might expect a turbo-charger to be present, if turbo is in the name... On the other hand, there is an argument that sticking 'turbo' on anything, including a car, is a simple and effective way of letting the average chap figure out it's extra quick in some way. I think in Porsche's case, it must have been a tricky decision. They're normally fairly dry and logical when it comes to naming things, but the fact is that 'Turbo' has become the name associated with it's more potent model versions, it's already established. If I squint I can start to imagine how that board meeting played out and how they arrived at a slightly awkward decision. I'm sure they were well aware some mocking would follow!! That doesn't automatically mean that it wasn't the best decision though. No one chucking their opinions around this forum is going to give the pro's and cons of such a decision as much thought as those protecting and directing a multi billion pound brand after all.
Durzel said:
TheDeuce said:
What bias? I have never wanted a Porsche before, almost the opposite to be honest. And my comments about affordability are related to the UK BIK cut to 0%, which makes any EV unbelievably affordable relative to anything else in the same performance bracket.
Maybe bias is strong, but you've been gushing about the car quite a bit whilst comparing others unfavourably from the get-go. I got the sense that you'd already made the decision to buy one from the opening post and were just looking for validation. No big deal though, each to their own etc.Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 11th September 12:44
This isn't a comparison thread, it's a thread to discuss the merits of the first performance, drivers EV. Since I'm considering spending a significant amount of money on the thing, I of course want to discuss it a little first - even if only to hear others views, which is useful sometimes.
I believe I have only made direct and negative comparisons to other EV's when people have posted about the Model S being a superior performance car - which it is not. I'm not pointing that out because I'm only capable of appreciating the Taycan and am blind to all other EV's. It's just a fact, and i'd rather not see the thread de-railed with nonsense about another car, in another EV segment that has nothing to do with the Taycan, or why I or others might want a car like the Taycan.
I don’t get all the negativity about “turbo” being on the back of a Porsche. It’s been devalued to a trim level just like Ghia (Ford), AMG (Mercedes), msport (bmw) - actually that is prob a little unfair to Porsche as at least there is a performance differential.
It must be over 30 years since bmw started putting the wrong engine capacity on the boot lid - there was a spell (I think) where 316, 318 and 320 all had a 2.0 engine, the 318iS for a time had a 1.9, and the 320 had a 2.2 before it finished. And now 330 and 530 have 2.0 engines etc etc. It’s really not worth getting excited over
It must be over 30 years since bmw started putting the wrong engine capacity on the boot lid - there was a spell (I think) where 316, 318 and 320 all had a 2.0 engine, the 318iS for a time had a 1.9, and the 320 had a 2.2 before it finished. And now 330 and 530 have 2.0 engines etc etc. It’s really not worth getting excited over
So what are you looking for? Confirmation that it is actually the world's first "driver's" EV? Which, let's face it, handling better and performing better than the other EVs doesn't make it a "driver's" car, does it?
Is it the fastest EV? Is it the best handling EV? Does it stop the best? Is it well trimmed? Is it the best screwed together? Yes, yes, yes, yes and probably yes.
But "driver's" and EV is probably a bit of a contradiction of terms. It'll be point, squirt and hang on for dear life. It'll probably be the fastest thing on the road, capable of flattering even the most ham fisted of buffoons. Capable of performance that far exceeds the capabilities of the vast majority of us.
But a driver's car, or EV even? No.
Is it the fastest EV? Is it the best handling EV? Does it stop the best? Is it well trimmed? Is it the best screwed together? Yes, yes, yes, yes and probably yes.
But "driver's" and EV is probably a bit of a contradiction of terms. It'll be point, squirt and hang on for dear life. It'll probably be the fastest thing on the road, capable of flattering even the most ham fisted of buffoons. Capable of performance that far exceeds the capabilities of the vast majority of us.
But a driver's car, or EV even? No.
Edited by UnderSteerD on Wednesday 11th September 17:22
Edited by UnderSteerD on Wednesday 11th September 17:26
Edited by UnderSteerD on Wednesday 11th September 17:28
otolith said:
On what basis do you feel that they're incompatible?
Firstly, let me make it clear that I'm pro EV, so much h so that I'm waiting on the delivery on one.But as a car, the pleasure in the EV will be its ease to operate. The smoothness of its drive train. The quiet. The abundance of acceleration that I'm sure will be hilarious when the opportunity presents itself.
But its capabilities are such that you're never going to be able to stretch its legs in any meaningful way and even on a track, the "fun" will be trying to hang on and trying to react sufficiently quickly to its brutal performance.
But the actual engagement will be very little.
Please don't confuse having the best performance with actually having to "drive" it. It drives itself, you just pick the lines it takes.
otolith said:
I don't really see what the form of propulsion has with any of that - unless it's about having a clutch and gear lever?
The car does all the thinking for you. The only engagement is turning the steering wheel. But I mentioned that in my previous post. Edited by UnderSteerD on Wednesday 11th September 18:08
UnderSteerD said:
otolith said:
I don't really see what the form of propulsion has with any of that - unless it's about having a clutch and gear lever?
The car does all the thinking for you. The only engagement is turning the steering wheel. UnderSteerD said:
otolith said:
You can buy petrol powered cars with four wheel drive, automatic gearbox, stability and traction control and torque vectoring.
And these are what you'd call "driver's" cars? Lamborghini Huracán EVO
Porsche 911 Turbo
New Honda NSX
Ferrari SF90 Stradale
etc
otolith said:
They're not my cup of tea, but I think there are plenty of people who would call them "driver's cars";
Lamborghini Huracán EVO
Porsche 911 Turbo
New Honda NSX
Ferrari SF90 Stradale
etc
I'm not one of those people you mention. Lamborghini Huracán EVO
Porsche 911 Turbo
New Honda NSX
Ferrari SF90 Stradale
etc
I haven't driven any of those cars and it's unlikely I ever will, but I'll go out on a limb and question the actual driver involvement in each of those examples.
And returning to my point about EVs, the way an EV will deploy its traction and stability systems etc will be very different to those that rely on any sort of mechanical input. An EV is a computer, it IS the traction and stability system.
UnderSteerD said:
otolith said:
They're not my cup of tea, but I think there are plenty of people who would call them "driver's cars";
Lamborghini Huracán EVO
Porsche 911 Turbo
New Honda NSX
Ferrari SF90 Stradale
etc
I'm not one of those people you mention. Lamborghini Huracán EVO
Porsche 911 Turbo
New Honda NSX
Ferrari SF90 Stradale
etc
I haven't driven any of those cars and it's unlikely I ever will, but I'll go out on a limb and question the actual driver involvement in each of those examples.
And returning to my point about EVs, the way an EV will deploy its traction and stability systems etc will be very different to those that rely on any sort of mechanical input. An EV is a computer, it IS the traction and stability system.
"Turbo" does seam to have negative connotations in the context of an electric car.
Turbo often means economy as it allows smaller displacement with better part load efficiency. And it means lag and not the instantaneous response of an EV. A BMW 340i is a lovely car but at idle in drive put your foot down and there is signicant delay as the power comes in in a series of steps as all the complexity sorts its self out. But not fast enough to capitalise on a gap in the traffic, where a large capacity V8 or EV would.
Turbo often means economy as it allows smaller displacement with better part load efficiency. And it means lag and not the instantaneous response of an EV. A BMW 340i is a lovely car but at idle in drive put your foot down and there is signicant delay as the power comes in in a series of steps as all the complexity sorts its self out. But not fast enough to capitalise on a gap in the traffic, where a large capacity V8 or EV would.
otolith said:
There is no mechanical input between you and a modern ICE engine. The throttle generates a torque request which a computer manages the powertrain to meet.
Yes, thank you for that. And when you consider the complexity and effectiveness of those computer calculations on an EV when compared with a modern ICE vehicle, it only further reinforces my point that "driver's car" and EV don't belong in the same sentence.
Edited by UnderSteerD on Wednesday 11th September 20:31
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff