Along with the CTS-V, XFR, E63 comparo, the new Car and Driver had some test results for the Panamera Turbo:

Base Price: $133,395/ price as tested: $147,945

0-60 3.3 sec
1/4 mi 11.7 @119
Skid pad 0.92g
Braking 70-0 159ft

The 0-60 and 1/4 mi times for the Panamera Turbo were 0.2 and 0.1 secs faster than the last 911 Turbo they tested. They felt the launch control (part of the $2280 Sport Chrono Package) helped with the 0-60 times. They loved the interior, but there were no defenders for the exterior styling.

fast car for sure...I will have to look around for some pictures of it as I have not yet seen this car.

wow .. very fast ... faster than V ... strange .. V weight less and has more HP and TQ ... i think it got very good gear !!!

I think my 9.5 pulley CTS-V can take it

I would like to look at the car in person up close myself..

Quite simply, the Panamera numbers don't add up, regardless of launch control or whatever. Something is inaccurate.

I would like to look at the car in person up close myself..

Saw one at a Porsche dealer last week. Definitely a nice ride. Quality materials. The brakes on the fronts... OMFG.. Huge
Silky front end the rear? a bit odd but definitely Porsche. Dont know that i would spend $147, though.

Quite simply, the Panamera numbers don't add up, regardless of launch control or whatever. Something is inaccurate.

Well, on paper the GT-R should be no faster in the 1/4 than a Z06 since it weighs more and has less power. But nearly all the car rags that tested both say the GT-R is faster due to its AWD traction and dual-clutch gearbox. I suspect the Panamera beats the V for the same reasons.

That is one of the ugliest cars I've ever seen!
It Looks like a BAR OF SOAP!

The car is full time AWD. I'm not at all surprised that to 60 it would jump all over us. Hell, the 4800lb Jeep with 420 crank horsepower can do that trick.

Given the price tag, I'd rather buy a CTS-V and then for desert a Z06.

That is one of the ugliest cars I've ever seen!
It Looks like a BAR OF SOAP!

I concur.

Quite simply, the Panamera numbers don't add up, regardless of launch control or whatever. Something is inaccurate.
Makes perfect sense to me. What do you think is amiss?

wow that car is really not attactive...at least not in my eyes!

IMO the car looks good from the front and rear, but horrible from the side!

I wouldn't get caught driving one even if it had a Veyron engine.

I wonder if it's a 1 and done launch type of thing that got all the GT-R guys in trouble. If not, hot damn that's incredible.

But again, for that kind of coin, it oughtta be...

The 0-60 time is easily attributed to the fact that the car has both AWD and Launch Control. I'm surprised that GM did not give the CTS-V the Corvette GS's Launch control system for 2010. The Grand Sport is now capable of a 0-60 time of 3.9secs... with 436HP, I wonder what that the CTS-V would pull. I'm guessing a similar 2/10th drop like the Vette.. putting it (the CTS-V) at 3.7secs. AWD would surely knock off several tenths as well.

HELL... we've all tried to launch this car with out spinning... PS2's or not.. it's a chore:yup:

A critical piece of information is that the tested Turbo has the optional Sport Chrono Package. It not only includes the launch control, that is not available otherwise, but also allows a temporary overboost that allows about 10% more power and torque for around 20 seconds or so. Porsche even notes an official drop of 0.2 sec from 0-60 in their official specs, from 4.0 t0 3.8. A standard Turbo would not achieve the posted test results. Actually, even the tested car wouldn't be able to match those numbers repeatedly, due to the temporary nature of the overboost. It would depend on how long it takes to reset the overboost function. A combination of all-wheel drive, launch control, and overboost certainly contribute to those stellar test numbers.

An article I recently read talked about current testing procedures and benchmarks. It talked about how 0-60 is highly dependent on a good launch, and therefore is not a good measure of performance for fast cars. It talked about how the quarter-mile is a better performance measure, as the distance wasted by spinning the tires is pretty small, and while it will make a difference with the elapsed time, it won't affect the terminal velocity much. That makes the terminal velocity in the quarter mile a better equalizer than any time measurement. It explains how really fast cars have mediocre 1/4 mile times but high MPH, and really excel at really high speeds, like 150 mph and above.

In the C/D comparo test, the V had the highest MPH in the quarter, in spite of difficulties with the launch with the manual. The Porsche does beat the V's MPH in the quarter, but that is with overboost. It would be interesting to see what the non-chrono package Turbo does in the same test. The Porsche has one other advantage as the speeds rise, and that is aerodynamics. The Porsche Turbo is listed as .30, but that will drop at higher speeds because the body drops about an inch with the air suspension. The faster the car goes, the more important this becomes. Some of our horsepower advantage is definitely being wasted by less than ideal aero at high speeds. The Mercedes probably is helped by this the most, but the Porsche is not far behind.

An article I recently read talked about current testing procedures and benchmarks. It talked about how 0-60 is highly dependent on a good launch, and therefore is not a good measure of performance for fast cars.

Agreed.. and just as importantly, most tests don't tell you what Roll-out they've used to achieve these 0-60 times. More roll out = quicker times.. even just an inch!


It talked about how the quarter-mile is a better performance measure, as the distance wasted by spinning the tires is pretty small, and while it will make a difference with the elapsed time, it won't affect the terminal velocity much. That makes the terminal velocity in the quarter mile a better equalizer than any time measurement. It explains how really fast cars have mediocre 1/4 mile times but high MPH, and really excel at really high speeds, like 150 mph and above.

Yes, and one other factor that is just as important is Weight of the vehicle. A rough rule of thumb is that for every ~100 lbs shaved can increase your mph by ~1 mph which is roughly equal to ~10 hp (ie. to increase your 1/4 mile trap speed by 1 mph requires adding 10 hp OR taking off 100 lbs.)

IMO the car looks good from the front and rear, but horrible from the side!Thats because the front of every Porsche looks the same...theyve got the laziest designers. Their sedan and SUV both have disproportionate asses, again, because the designers know how to design 1 thing, and thats the front end of a 911. :)

It's fast for sure, but it can't outrun it's ugliness.

Its not the best looking car, but a quick rendor with a drop and some wheels and its much more tolerable IMHO:

http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac149/wheeladdicts/PANAMERA20ADV5_120ADV_1.jpg

with tints (I know its a hack job but you get the idea)

http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac149/wheeladdicts/untitledn.jpg

Along with the CTS-V, XFR, E63 comparo

I don't understand the "top gear acceleration 30 to 50 and 50 to 70". The V is WAY behind the other cars in this category. Is it because the other 2 cars are automatics and they get the benefit of downshifting?

Why they couldn't locate an automatic vehicle? We all know the automatic has better 0-60 and qtr mile times (for regular drivers like magazine editors).

I don't understand the "top gear acceleration 30 to 50 and 50 to 70". The V is WAY behind the other cars in this category. Is it because the other 2 cars are automatics and they get the benefit of downshifting?

Why they couldn't locate an automatic vehicle? We all know the automatic has better 0-60 and qtr mile times (for regular drivers like magazine editors).

I guess it might be to show that it is available in a manual. Many people are shocked that you can get a Cadillac in manual.