New Porsche Cayenne Diesel
Discussion
Cobnapint said:
5to1 said:
Cobnapint said:
But, if you do big miles, you can only benefit from that overnight charge and extra torque for a small part of your journey. Once the batteries are cooked, you'll be burning extra fuel carrying them around all day and while charging the things back up. You have to put energy in to get it out, and unless you take a portable charger with you, or your prepared to sit at numerous charging points for extended periods on the way, it rather defeats the object.
Have a guess why newer cars are switching to 48v. If you really drive in such a manner get a non hybrid petrol. Surely someone that runs a Cayenne for big miles can afford one or two £k a year difference in fuel costs. If you're really putting ~30k (what I consider big miles) on a year the depreciation alone will be eye watering by comparison. Let alone cost of consumables/maintenance.
In reality I don't think the examples cited typify many peoples use. I'm interested to hear your usage profile. What's big miles? How often do you do them? How many days of the year would you only do shorter journeys (where the hybrid or EV would save you money/filling up)? How much is annual depreciation/maintenance as a result of the big miles?
The way hybrids/EV are heading they could soon mean zero petrol used for 30 or 40 mile round trips @ <40mph. I think for many people (even if they also do big miles) that will offset the disadvantages. Until of course tax revenue drops and the exchequer has to find another way to get his ounce of flesh!
And don't get on at me, I didn't quote the mpg figures. Good mpg is a great side effect admittedly, but I prefer diesel because of the way it drives.
Mention ICE which isn't relevant to our discussion. And skirt around the other reason behind the move to 48v, which is very relevant.
You mentioned energy has to come from somewhere, so of course you realise (unless it's capturing ala DPF) the less emissions less emissions means its doing more with the same unit of fuel. And thats not achieved by spooling the turbo up early, again avoiding the inconvenient bit
It facilitates better harvesting of energy that would otherwise be wasted. Regenerative braking, regenerating when coasting, these days they are even using vibrations and suspension movement. That energy is then used when the engine is least efficient. Perhaps when crawling in traffic. When it needs more power, but that would place it outside its most efficient operating window. In short, with modern Hybrids/Mild Hybrids you are not just carrying around an empty battery after you've used the initial charge. Unless of course you never brake, never coast and drive on the smoothest flattest road possible. Im which case forget about diesels, tell me how the hell I get a blast on that route
Also in terms of the way they drive, they are taking the best facets of diesel and moving it on a step. Immense, instant, low down torque and power. (And yes my current car is a diesel so I have a valid point of comparison).
All i'm saying is don't lament too soon. I suspect many of you will be saying Diesel who?
5to1 said:
Nice tactic
Mention ICE which isn't relevant to our discussion. And skirt around the other reason behind the move to 48v, which is very relevant.
You mentioned energy has to come from somewhere, so of course you realise (unless it's capturing ala DPF) the less emissions less emissions means its doing more with the same unit of fuel. And thats not achieved by spooling the turbo up early, again avoiding the inconvenient bit
It facilitates better harvesting of energy that would otherwise be wasted. Regenerative braking, regenerating when coasting, these days they are even using vibrations and suspension movement. That energy is then used when the engine is least efficient. Perhaps when crawling in traffic. When it needs more power, but that would place it outside its most efficient operating window. In short, with modern Hybrids/Mild Hybrids you are not just carrying around an empty battery after you've used the initial charge. Unless of course you never brake, never coast and drive on the smoothest flattest road possible. Im which case forget about diesels, tell me how the hell I get a blast on that route
Also in terms of the way they drive, they are taking the best facets of diesel and moving it on a step. Immense, instant, low down torque and power. (And yes my current car is a diesel so I have a valid point of comparison).
All i'm saying is don't lament too soon. I suspect many of you will be saying Diesel who?
Nice tactic?Mention ICE which isn't relevant to our discussion. And skirt around the other reason behind the move to 48v, which is very relevant.
You mentioned energy has to come from somewhere, so of course you realise (unless it's capturing ala DPF) the less emissions less emissions means its doing more with the same unit of fuel. And thats not achieved by spooling the turbo up early, again avoiding the inconvenient bit
It facilitates better harvesting of energy that would otherwise be wasted. Regenerative braking, regenerating when coasting, these days they are even using vibrations and suspension movement. That energy is then used when the engine is least efficient. Perhaps when crawling in traffic. When it needs more power, but that would place it outside its most efficient operating window. In short, with modern Hybrids/Mild Hybrids you are not just carrying around an empty battery after you've used the initial charge. Unless of course you never brake, never coast and drive on the smoothest flattest road possible. Im which case forget about diesels, tell me how the hell I get a blast on that route
Also in terms of the way they drive, they are taking the best facets of diesel and moving it on a step. Immense, instant, low down torque and power. (And yes my current car is a diesel so I have a valid point of comparison).
All i'm saying is don't lament too soon. I suspect many of you will be saying Diesel who?
Jeez. Whatever mate. You run along and have a row in the mirror.
Our second diesel Cayenne is now 3 years old and like many, the plan was to trade it in against the new diesel model. Most likely, we will just keep the one we have long term now. It's sad because diesel suits any large SUV so well. Ours is doing 35 mpg + but the range (real world 750 - 800 miles) and the power delivery are the true upsides. Its been faultless over 35k miles (as was the last one) and takes a battering as the family hack.
Might take a look for a late 2017 car but guess I may have missed the boat as lots doing the same and prices firming up again.
Might take a look for a late 2017 car but guess I may have missed the boat as lots doing the same and prices firming up again.
pete said:
I've done 28k miles in 4 years in a Cayenne 3.0 Diesel. It has been a lovely place to sit for those miles, and the 700+ mile range means I've spent little of my life on filling station forecourts, but I am now looking forward to its 440bhp petrol replacement :-) I bought it expecting to cover almost double that mileage, but I'm now in exactly the situation that 5to1 mentions; a few more quid a year on fuel is immaterial compared to the other running costs.
Rather than the economy, I've enjoyed my Cayenne Diesel for its convenience. I refuel once a month at the most. Imagine that, fewer than 12 times a year at the pumps. I'm looking forward to taking delivery of a new Cayenne in April, however, I always thought the Diesel wouldn't be too far behind. I'll be sorry to see it go as it's been faultless and a wonderful car to own and drive. I'm sure I'll get over it when the new Cayenne arrives. I was fortunate enough to check it out at the Chicago Auto Show and the cabin is a huge leap forward.
Edited by Sierra Mike on Friday 23 February 04:15
Old news but I missed it. I’m really looking forward to the new Cayenne Diesel.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/porsche/102691/death-...
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/porsche/102691/death-...
5to1 said:
Burwood said:
Why anyone would opt for a RR over the above. It is a handsome beast
Aesthetically I like the RRS and Velar. Interior is pretty nice aswell and HSE comes well specd. It’s driving dynamics and reliability that put me off.
garyhun said:
5to1 said:
Burwood said:
Why anyone would opt for a RR over the above. It is a handsome beast
Aesthetically I like the RRS and Velar. Interior is pretty nice aswell and HSE comes well specd. It’s driving dynamics and reliability that put me off.
The one aesthetic issue I have is with the black trim on the bottom of the Cayenne. I'm going to see if I can live with it, otherwise I'll have to get it sorted (wrap, spray or kit).In reality whilst I like them aesthetically, I mean for a SUV. I'm in this market out of "necessity", I wouldn't pick them based on looks from a line up that wasn't restricted to SUVs (or god forbid estates
).Edited by 5to1 on Saturday 24th February 16:14
garyhun said:
5to1 said:
Burwood said:
Why anyone would opt for a RR over the above. It is a handsome beast
Aesthetically I like the RRS and Velar. Interior is pretty nice aswell and HSE comes well specd. It’s driving dynamics and reliability that put me off.
Burwood said:
garyhun said:
5to1 said:
Burwood said:
Why anyone would opt for a RR over the above. It is a handsome beast
Aesthetically I like the RRS and Velar. Interior is pretty nice aswell and HSE comes well specd. It’s driving dynamics and reliability that put me off.
http://www.evo.co.uk/land-rover/range-rover-sport/...
Edited by 5to1 on Saturday 24th February 18:56
Edited by 5to1 on Saturday 24th February 18:57
Burwood said:
The RRS is a tad bigger isn’t it? The interior of the Porsche is a long way ahead. Looks being subjective. I couldn’t shell out all the dough on RR due to the horror stories. Common as muck around here.
I had a RRS as a hire car a few months ago...definitely has more compliant ride/waft. But comfort in terms of seats, quality of interior, handling and the quality of the engine (Diesel lump in RRS is agricultural) Cayenne definitely ahead. And the controls and infotainment Cayenne was miles ahead. garyhun said:
5to1 said:
Burwood said:
Why anyone would opt for a RR over the above. It is a handsome beast
Aesthetically I like the RRS and Velar. Interior is pretty nice aswell and HSE comes well specd. It’s driving dynamics and reliability that put me off.
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff