Porsche has revealed its most economical model to date, the Panamera diesel. Set to join the German carmaker's European line-up in August, the big four-door sedan boasts claimed combined fuel mileage on the European cycle of 36.2mpg (US) -- bettering the 31.8mpg (US) of the similarly powered Cayenne diesel and providing the rear-wheel drive Panamera diesel with a CO2 rating of 172g/km. With its standard 21 gallon fuel tank, the Panamera diesel would have a theoretical range of 766 miles.
Powering the Panamera diesel is an upgraded version of the Audi produced 3.0-litre V6 common rail diesel engine used in the Cayenne diesel. It produces 247-hp between 3800 and 4400rpm together with 405 lb ft of torque between 1750 and 2750rpm. That’s 10-hp more than the same unit produces in the Cayenne diesel, and while torque remains the same, it’s developed some 250rpm earlier in the rev range.
Among the engine’s fuel saving technology is an automatic stop/start function and the latest piezo direct injection system that operates at pressures of up to 29,000 psi. Drive is sent to the rear wheels via the same eight-speed Tiptronic S automatic gearbox used in the upcoming Panamera hybrid but not offered on any other Panamera model.
Porsche claims a 0-62mph time of 6.8sec – the same as that quoted for the base 296bhp 3.0-litre V6 Panamera, although with a top speed of 150mph, the Panamera diesel is down by some 12mph on its gasoline-powered sibling.
The Panamera diesel is differentiated from other Panamera models by discreet diesel badges mounted on the leading edge of the front doors. Porsche’s latest model costs 80,183 Euros in Germany, including a 19% sales tax – Andreas Stahl, correspondent.
sharpend says:
02:37 AM, 05/ 2/11
The times they are a changin'.
moparbad says:
04:16 AM, 05/ 2/11
Times are not changing in California.
No diesel for you!
Thanks to CARB.
dougtheeng says:
05:44 AM, 05/ 2/11
Its still ugly, though I love diesel.
throwback says:
06:39 AM, 05/ 2/11
Makes more sense than the hybird version.
ed124c says:
06:50 AM, 05/ 2/11
It is too bad that the rich, who don't need cars with great fuel economy, get expensive cars with great fuel economy. It really doen't make sense to get the diesel if you are rich. Unless you are somebody like Bono. But I doubt Bono would buy such an extravagant car.
@dougtheeng: The use of the word "ugly" should be used with care.
blueguydotcom says:
06:53 AM, 05/ 2/11
Seems like a fine compromise. It's fast enough to be pleasant but still offers insane handling and great fuel economy.
wjtinatl says:
08:13 AM, 05/ 2/11
A few years ago Bono was driving a Maserati Quattroporte, he referred to it as a "Dentist's" car! The diesel Panamera would seem the perfect ride for a wealthy "greenie".
dougtheeng says:
08:44 AM, 05/ 2/11
"@dougtheeng: The use of the word "ugly" should be used with care."
I'm not sure I follow your meaning here. Its definitely ugly. Perhaps a stronger word is required?
blueguydotcom says:
09:00 AM, 05/ 2/11
@ed: "It is too bad that the rich, who don't need cars with great fuel economy..."
Um, maybe they want it?
Nobody needs a 100k car either. Or for that matter a 30k car. It's about desire.
ed124c says:
09:20 AM, 05/ 2/11
@blueguydotcom: I guess what I was saying is that someone who wants a real sporting sedan, like the Panamera, probably wouldn't want a diluted version for even more money.
@dougtheeng: The word "ugly" should be reserved for cars that really deserve it. The Panamera is not ugly. Some people might not think it is beautiful, but I doubt many would think it ugly. You are welcome to your opinions, of course. I am only a lowly commenter, giving my opinion, which is that the Panamera is not the prettiest car in the world, but it is quite attractive.
blueprint1 says:
09:26 AM, 05/ 2/11
Diesel Porsche? Perfectly OK with me.
Automatic-only Porsches? Not quite. Put a stick in the Panamera, Porsche, and you will get my imaginery dollars.
dougtheeng says:
09:36 AM, 05/ 2/11
ed124c: Fair enough, I hear where you're coming from. To me, its ugly. And when you compare it to its direct competitors (Aston Martin Rapide, Maserati Quattroporte), its even worse.
exnevadan says:
09:50 AM, 05/ 2/11
this model's not only ugly, it'll be stinky
Porsche must be laughing
jm1212 says:
10:47 AM, 05/ 2/11
if you want to go to a place where people are only allowed to have what they need, when you need to find another place to live. quite honestly, no person NEEDS a car. there are plenty of other ways to get around that are much less expensive. biking comes to mind. if you live far from your job, there is public transportation or taxis available. if we really want to get into what people NEED, then we need to remove automobiles altogether.
hoosiergrandad says:
01:54 PM, 05/ 2/11
"quite honestly, no person NEEDS a car. there are plenty of other ways to get around that are much less expensive. biking comes to mind."
Ever been out here in "flyover" country?" Public transportation's a litttle tough to come by amongst the cornfields, and riding a bike 50 miles to the nearest city.......
bestjinjo says:
02:24 PM, 05/ 2/11
"Porsche claims a 0-62mph time of 6.8sec – the same as that quoted for the base 296bhp 3.0-litre V6 Panamera"
That doesn't sound right. The stock V6 goes from 0-60 in 6.0 sec and 5.8 sec with the optional Sports Chrono Package: http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/panamera/panamera/featuresandspecs/?gtabindex=1
Either Porsche or the target customer for this vehicle is having an identity crisis. A Porsche is supposed to be a sports car. 6.8s 0-60 is completely unacceptable for a Porsche non-SUV vehicle. It's even more unacceptable for a car with a price tag of > $100k without having the luxury of a Bentley, etc.
Also, if someone can afford a car for $100-120k, they obviously shouldn't care about the gas price. If they want to save the environment, this car isn't it either since they'd probably be looking into an electric car. Basically, I don't understand any reason at all to get this vehicle with such an underpowered engine. The stock V6 car gets a reasonable 22 mpg avg. This means the financial savings from reduced fuel costs for the owner will be immaterial because this isn't a $15,000 Honda Civic.
bestjinjo says:
02:24 PM, 05/ 2/11
"Porsche claims a 0-62mph time of 6.8sec – the same as that quoted for the base 296bhp 3.0-litre V6 Panamera"
That doesn't sound right. The stock V6 goes from 0-60 in 6.0 sec and 5.8 sec with the optional Sports Chrono Package: http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/panamera/panamera/featuresandspecs/?gtabindex=1
Either Porsche or the target customer for this vehicle is having an identity crisis. A Porsche is supposed to be a sports car. 6.8s 0-60 is completely unacceptable for a Porsche non-SUV vehicle. It's even more unacceptable for a car with a price tag of > $100k without having the luxury of a Bentley, etc.
Also, if someone can afford a car for $100-120k, they obviously shouldn't care about the gas price. If they want to save the environment, this car isn't it either since they'd probably be looking into an electric car. Basically, I don't understand any reason at all to get this vehicle with such an underpowered engine. The stock V6 car gets a reasonable 22 mpg avg. This means the financial savings from reduced fuel costs for the owner will be immaterial because this isn't a $15,000 Honda Civic.
nasahrsandi9 says:
05:12 AM, 05/ 3/11
this is nice option and I think a considerable amount of Panamera customers would opt for the diesel if it was to be sold in the U.S.