Turbonutter
|
Autocar 30th SeptemberForgotten cars on the back page - Mazda 323 4x4 Turbo
My friend used to maintain the Works rally ones for a while when Timo Salonen was a in the team - great handling but never enough poke
Buying a 2nd hand Monaro 
A 'race' between a few cars to see how far a gallon will get you
Porsche Panamera Turbo road test
0-60 in 4.0, 0-100 in 9.2
188 max
ss1/4 12.5@116
A big gap over the Jag XFR wet or dry on the handling course - but the Jag is still the favourite
|
Guitar Zero
|
Holy crap that's fast - 1 second quicker than the XFR to 100 mph (and 0.7 seconds quicker than an RS6)
Hmmm 493 bhp my arse !
|
franki68
|
Re: Autocar 30th September | Turbonutter wrote: | Forgotten cars on the back page - Mazda 323 4x4 Turbo
My friend used to maintain the Works rally ones for a while when Timo Salonen was a in the team - great handling but never enough poke
Buying a 2nd hand Monaro
A 'race' between a few cars to see how far a gallon will get you
Porsche Panamera Turbo road test
0-60 in 4.0, 0-100 in 9.2
188 max
ss1/4 12.5@116
A big gap over the Jag XFR wet or dry on the handling course - but the Jag is still the favourite |
god that is fast for such a beast,shame it is so expensive and ugly.
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
It's usefully lighter than the RS6, which I'm sure helps a lot.
|
Guitar Zero
|
Well, based on quoted kerb weights, the panna cotta is only 15 kilos lighter than the RS6. Even if it was 100kgs lighter - I can't see how that would account for taking 0.7 seconds out of the 100 mph sprint.
My guess is the test car is putting out way more than the claimed figures at UK ambient temperatures. It's probably been certified at 493 bhp and 516 lbs ft as a minimum in 40 degree heat at a few 1000 feet above sea level.
Or it's had it's nips tweaked
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
The RS6 - like most Audis - was far heavier as tested than Audi's quoted figure - 2150 kg IIRC.
|
Eff One
|
Perhaps I'm becoming acclimatised, but the Panamera works far better in those pics than any other example I've seen. I could imagine it being a fine companion for a four-up cross-continent blat - in a manual N/A, of course.
|
Guitar Zero
|
I'm loving the Panna cotta.
The interior is especially delightful and the turbo's pace is just ferocious (assuming it's representative of the car your average customer will get). To put it in perspective, the pre LP640 Murcielago manual needed 4.0 seconds and 9.0 seconds to reach the 60 and 100 mph increments. Yet here is a huge 4 door saloon that will spit those figures out time and time again for my grandma, never mind a seasoned road tester. Murcielago clutches can only take 4 or 5 full throttle starts before they fail - so if you pull up to one at the lights in your Carreranamera it's curtains for Lambo man and his 4 wheel drive chest wig.
The only black mark is the ride quality - if Jag can make an XFR ride like it does - why can't Porsche ???
A big saloon that doesn't ride properly is stoopid
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
I've seen quite a few Pannacottas now, and although they're dependent on colour (dark works best) and wheels, they do look good, especially on the move.
The ride is a black mark though.
|
Scouse
|
| Guitar Zero wrote: | I'm loving the Panna cotta.
The interior is especially delightful and the turbo's pace is just ferocious (assuming it's representative of the car your average customer will get). To put it in perspective, the pre LP640 Murcielago manual needed 4.0 seconds and 9.0 seconds to reach the 60 and 100 mph increments. Yet here is a huge 4 door saloon that will spit those figures out time and time again for my grandma, never mind a seasoned road tester. Murcielago clutches can only take 4 or 5 full throttle starts before they fail - so if you pull up to one at the lights in your Carreranamera it's curtains for Lambo man and his 4 wheel drive chest wig.
The only black mark is the ride quality - if Jag can make an XFR ride like it does - why can't Porsche ???
A big saloon that doesn't ride properly is stoopid |
'cos if it did, it wouldn't take 3 seconds a lap out of the XFR on the test track.
|
Parm
|
I expect Panameras are in UK showrooms now. Might pop over to my nearest for a poke around one. I'm intrigued to see how good/bad it looks in the metal.
|
Guitar Zero
|
Why would anyone even entertain the merest hint of a suggestion of thrapping a two tonne monster around a track ?
These are road cars and no compromise should ever be made in on road dynamic behaviour just to improve track performance.
Anyone attempting to take a Coxsterama on a track should be punched in the goolies repeatedly until they have no goolies left to punch
|
DaveGibson
|
| Guitar Zero wrote: | | ...... if Jag can make an XFR ride like it does - why can't Porsche ???...... |
Because they don't make the XFR? 
The Panamera's better acceleration with a less powerful engine can easily be explained by its gearing. As shown below, in each comparable gear, the Porsche is lower geared than the XF. Only in 7th does it have a longer ratio than The Jaguar.
Ratio/mph per 1000rpm
XF:
1st 4.17 / 6
2nd 2.34 / 10.7
3rd 1.52 / 16.5
4th 1.14 / 22
5th 0.87 / 28.8
6th 0.69 / 36.3
Porsche
1st 5.97 / 4.4
2nd 3.31 / 8.0
3rd 2.01 / 13.2
4th 1.37 / 19.4
5th 1.0 / 26.6
6th 0.81 / 32.8
7th 0.59 / 45.0
|
Guitar Zero
|
| Quote: | | The Panamera's better acceleration with a less powerful engine can easily be explained by its gearing. As shown below, in each comparable gear, the Porsche is lower geared than the XF. |
Actually - I don't think it can.
Of the 1 second that the Pandamera beats the XFR to 100 mph by, 0.7 seconds of it has been achieved by 40 mph - the Cayamera is only 0.3 seconds quicker between 60 and 100 mph.
Also - it may run lower gearing, but it has to make one extra gearchange to get to 100 mph than the XFR does.
Clearly then, the main explanation for the Porsche's superiority to 100 mph over the XFR is because it gets off the line so much harder due to a combination of it's 4 wheel drive system and faintly ludicrous torque output (nearly 60 lbs ft on the standard car).
|
ds240
|
saw the panamera at le mans and thought it looked a bit crap. Black one in showroom on sat and thought it looked great, a lot sleeker looking. Fantastic interior.
The turbo tested would be a lot more expensive than xfr, so should be faster and more capable.
|
Scouse
|
| Guitar Zero wrote: | Why would anyone even entertain the merest hint of a suggestion of thrapping a two tonne monster around a track ?
These are road cars and no compromise should ever be made in on road dynamic behaviour just to improve track performance.
Anyone attempting to take a Coxsterama on a track should be punched in the goolies repeatedly until they have no goolies left to punch |
I know & appreciate that, you know & appreciate that, however the type of people who will by the Panemera and talk bollocks about it on 'tinterweb are only interested in the fact that a) it's a Porsche so must be better than everything else and b) it's figures say so on paper.
|
Frank Bullitt
|
Think the Panamera is lovely but mine would be a manual S as I'm not convinced by PDK (a-la S-Tronic a-la DSG).
Porsche allow some true retina-destroying colour schemes so make mine one of those then!
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
| Frank Bullitt wrote: | | Think the Panamera is lovely but mine would be a manual S as I'm not convinced by PDK (a-la S-Tronic a-la DSG). Porsche allow some true retina-destroying colour schemes so make mine one of those then! |
I reckon I'd go for a manual 2S as well. Though it just shows how spoiled I am that I'd be wondering if 400 bhp was enough.
|
franki68
|
To me any car bigger than the xfr/m5/e63/rs6 is completely and utterly pointless.
They can carry 4 grown adults in comfort and are of a reasonable size.
The fugly porker is far too big,and has less appeal to me than the cayenne (which I really don't like,but its a lot more practical).
There is not a car in the current porsche range that I would swap my car for.
|
TimR
|
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote: | | Frank Bullitt wrote: | | Think the Panamera is lovely but mine would be a manual S as I'm not convinced by PDK (a-la S-Tronic a-la DSG). Porsche allow some true retina-destroying colour schemes so make mine one of those then! |
I reckon I'd go for a manual 2S as well. Though it just shows how spoiled I am that I'd be wondering if 400 bhp was enough. |
400BHP is never enough.
Now, where did I put that supercharger
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
| TimR wrote: | | Now, where did I put that supercharger |
Fail. Superchargers are pants. AMG are the correct ones in this case, going for the bigger N/A engine. Panamera 6.0 would do just fine.
|
Boxer6
|
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote: | | TimR wrote: | | Now, where did I put that supercharger |
Fail. Superchargers are pants. AMG are the correct ones in this case, going for the bigger N/A engine. Panamera 6.0 would do just fine. |
Oh aye - fancy transplanting a Panamera motor into Tim's M5?? 
|
TimR
|
| Boxer6 wrote: | | Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote: | | TimR wrote: | | Now, where did I put that supercharger |
Fail. Superchargers are pants. AMG are the correct ones in this case, going for the bigger N/A engine. Panamera 6.0 would do just fine. |
Oh aye - fancy transplanting a Panamera motor into Tim's M5?? |
Yup.
Supercharges seem to be the way to big power for M5s.
Wouldn't want an engine designed for a big 4x4 in my car thanks
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
| TimR wrote: | | Supercharges seem to be the way to big bills for M5s. |
Fixed your post
|
TimR
|
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote: | | TimR wrote: | | Supercharges seem to be the way to big bills for M5s. |
Fixed your post |
It doesn't need a supercharger for that 
Mind you I got the tracking done on it this morning and it feels a whole load better.
Not bad for £30 (the cheapest bill ever known to man for an M5).
|
