Porsche Panamera - why is it so quick?

Three letters in the March 2010 Car & Driver question the 3.3 second 0-60mph time of the Porsche Panamera Turbo that was tested the December 2009 issue. That makes it potentially quicker than many cars with much more power and less weight including the McLaren F1, Ferrari Enzo and Porsche's own GT-2. Weighing 4409lbs with 500hp, on paper it shouldn't beat any of them. There are three reasons it's so quick.

All-wheel drive, the dual clutch transmission and gearing that is probably more aggressive than any performance car in history make it accelerate quicker than much more powerful and lighter cars. The Panamera Twin Turbo is in 3rd THIRD! gear by the time it hits 60mph. Many extreme cars like the Bugatti Veyron, Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 and others go over 60mph in 1st gear. Check out the Bugatti Veyron road test with the top 10 quickest cars they have tested.

The all-wheel drive ensures no slippage unlike the others where power delivery has to be managed with available traction. I eluded to this challenge in my 60-130mph article. A 1.2 second 0-30mph time is extraordinary, on par with the AWD Veyron and GT-R. I would guess this translates to a 1.6 second 60ft at the dragstrip given the previously mentioned gearing.

The horsepower deficit is apparent in the trap speed in the 119mph range vs. the 125-130mph or higher times of the other cars. With excellent track preparation, technique and usually drag radial tires, a few have been able to match the launch of the Panamera and therefore run a much quicker quarter mile. Modern-day street car drag racing legends such as "Ranger" and "Furman" are examples of Corvette and Viper drivers who have done this.

Finally the 7-speed dual-clutch transmission means nearly uninterrupted power delivery. As one clutch disengages, the next engages with a speed and consistency that can't be humanly repeated. With 5 non-overdrive gears, it's fierce.

There is no other-worldly driving skill excuse or strongly suspect fudging of power levels in any gear with the Porsche Panamera Twin Turbo, unlike the Nissan GT-R. The car doesn't defy physics but it's transmission sure tries to make it seem so. Just wait when the new 911 Twin Turbo is tested.

The 2010 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo assuming the gearing is the same as the Panamera is that it will accelerate even quicker since it's about 800lbs lighter than the Panamera. So besides still not matching the GT-R's "factory" 'Ring time, it still won't accelerate to 130mph 1.6 seconds quicker than production models nor accelerate from 120 to 130mph in .9 seconds either in production form.

A great link for various automotive calculators courtesy of Wallace Racing. There are several for 60ft translations and various speed indicators.
__________
Have a question about cars you would like answered? Want to know about performance, racing, modifying, shopping, makes, models, events, etc? Ask me here: AskRobAboutCars@gmail.com and I'll do my best to answer your question and publish it here on Examiner.com!

More About: drag racing · performance · Car and Driver · racing · GM · Ferrari · Corvette · Nissan · Porsche · Panamera · Dodge · Veyron · Chevrolet · Viper · cars · Lamborghini · Ask Rob About Cars

Axe the CTS Coupe, GM

That's right, the upcoming Cadillac CTS coupe is going to fail. GM should stop further development on this car before it becomes another loser in the automotive financial model.
http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/landing.jsp?model=cts&year=2009 Why? Because there are far, far more appealing alternative two-doors in the market.

This is my prediction. Quite frankly I'm sick and tired of seeing failures by GM, the demise of Pontiac, the disbanding of their performance division and the cancellation of the Camaro Z/28. Read further regarding that.

No doubt this will be a very nice car based on the CTS sedan. The performance will be average at best and the styling, while somewhat unique, may be awkward. That is an opinion, but coupes don't do well unless they stand out. This one doesn't. But unless the sales of the 'V' version support the research and development of the coupe, and that is highly doubtful, it will be more egg on their face. My heart goes out to the development team but senior product development is either polling the wrong market group or simply not listening.

The high-performance 'V' version will do better. Most likely in the mid $60k to $70k range and 556 horsepower like its four-door sibling, it offers a compelling argument because of its performance. I just don't think the CTS-V coupe will sell enough copies to justify the existence of the platform.

See, coupes are a discretionary buy now more than ever. Not only is it rare for a coupe to be a daily driver, there better well be a compelling reason like styling, performance, etc. And if you can get more for less money, you've got a serious competitive disadvantage.

The reasons the base CTS coupe will fail are numerous. The sedan base price is $37,585. So realistically it's a $40,000 to $48,000 coupe depending upon option groups. What is the appeal? Here it is competing against the new best bang-for-the-buck Camaro SS in the mid/upper $30k range with iconic styling and far better performance, also with usable rear seats. http://www.chevrolet.com/allnewcamaro/#camaro=build-your-own
GM competing against itself? Well take a look at entire GM fiasco of impractical duplication of platforms with different nameplates You know, goodbye Pontiac....

When you're in the $40k range and you can get away with a two-door, a new or used sixth generation Corvettes are the next step in value for performance with great styling. And you better believe in this day and age, at over $40,000, there are some phenomenally attractive used cars available, not to mention new. http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/?seo=goo__2008_Chevy_Retention__IMG_Chevy_Corvette__Corvette_Website__corvette_website
Then there is the Dodge Challenger reviving the classic muscle car from long ago with instantly recognizable styling. http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/challenger/It also has better performance with usable rear seats.

Ford's answer? The never discontinued Mustang GT. Featuring some improved refinement and interior styling for 2010, $30k for the GT or the monster GT500 in the mid $40s quite frankly makes the CTS coupe look like a photoshop exercise. http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/models/ You know what, when you have 540hp for $47k, who cares about usable rear seats? If you need practicality, you're probably not shopping a coupe.

And imports? The entire BMW 3series lineup, especially the 335i and if you're going to spend $40k+ on a second car, there is a good chance $70k isn't too scary for the M3. http://www.bmwusa.com/Default.aspx

Back to the V. It is something special because of its performance. A really cool alternative to someone shopping for a Vette or Porsche but desires (vs. needs) some practicality. And it undercuts the competition from Mercedes and BMW significantly. The M6 is $100k: http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/vehicles/2010/m/m6coupe/default.aspx and the M3 isn't a whole lot cheaper and will be slower in a straight line. http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/vehicles/2009/m/m3coupe/default.aspx The owner of, and I'm guessing here based on the obesity suffered by cars lately, a 4200lb coupe probably isn't too worried about his tire or brake wear at Laguna Seca hot lapping right behind his BMW M3 buddy. And that is making a big assumption it even gets on the track.

The problem is that the V most likely needs standard CTS Coupe sales to justify its existence. So GM, please tell us differently. But I think GM already told us something different. The cancellation of the Camaro Z-28. Lighter than the CTS-V Coupe, same engine, better styling. It wasn't cancelled to save money. The platform is rockin', the car is in demand. It was cancelled because it would take away from the CTS Coupe and even worse, the V. http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090323/CARNEWS/903239993

Surf on autotrader for 2door coupes in the $40k to $50k range. http://www.autotrader.com/ And if you like cars, you'll start to drool. Audi S5, Mercedes CLKs, Corvette Z-06, Vipers! Gorgeous cars, established coupes. Hey, I heard about a guy who cancelled his order for a Ferrari Scuderia, possibly the best sports car in the world due to the economy and concern about possible depreciation. It has hit everyone. GM, stop it. Just stop it now. Wrong car, wrong economy, bad timing.

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_CTS

10 years of GM's mistakes means 5 years of loss

General Motors should have consolidated brands a decade ago to avoid the position they are in. With Rick Wagoner's resignation of GM, or firing by President Obama, depending how you look at it, the reports state that GM hasn't posted a profit in 5 years. FIVE years! That is a lifetime for a company.

I pride myself on automotive product knowledge, but somehow I completely missed that GM has been hemorrhaging money for that long. No matter, it made me consolidate my thoughts about something in the back of my mind. GM missed a key business decision of eliminating brands. Hybrid SUVs were not any better.

My heart goes out to the employees who have lost their jobs at the plants, the suppliers and the dealerships. But competition, the costs of the union labor agreements and legacy costs of the pensions made GM a big medical care and pension company that is in the red. A familiar theme these days. GM should have done something unrelated to that aspect, but perhaps equally significant a long time ago.

Eliminating Oldsmobile was too little, too late. It was the tip of the iceberg. Ten years ago, not only should Oldsmobile have been eliminated, but Chevrolet trucks and the Buick nameplate too. Pontiac should have merged with Chevrolet and Cadillac. Hummer and Saab should never had entered the equation. Consolidate the small cars and sedans into Chevrolet from Pontiac and Buick by simply offering various trim levels. Have the maybe two profitable (and I'm guessing here) nameplates from Cadillac, the CTS and Escalade, sold at the Chevrolet showrooms. Put the SUVs and trucks in the GMC nameplate. Saturn would also be absorbed by Chevrolet.

I doubt GM will ever release how much they lost per brand, but lets look at what was involved. Separate bumpers front and rear, hoods, trunks, emblems interior options and materials, tail lights etc. all essentially the same platforms across the company. Development, marketing and advertising, logistics, inventory, shipping are major cost centers that could have been reduced sharply.

This massive consolidation would have eliminated billions in repetitive costs. It would also allow engineers to concentrate on modern development rather than brand differentiation. How many brands does Toyota have? Three: Toyota, Scion and Lexus with distinctly different models in each one. But they are probably pushing the envelope, having recently posted a loss as well. Nissan has kept it rather simple with two brands but have had their missteps too. I could go on addressing each manufacturer but you get the point.

Finally what about SUV and truck hybrids? A ridiculous notion only because they came BEFORE a small-car hybrid. Toyota scored a home run with the Prius, and its probably profitable for them. I will not get into debate about the carbon footprint of mining and manufacturing the battery but the 2008 Chevrolet Malibu PARTIAL hybrid was way too little, way too late.

I really want GM, Chrysler and Ford to succeed, but unfortunately we are paying for their mistakes. GM still needs to consolidate brands, immediately.

AutoWeek Regurgitates GM's poor press release for the Corvette

AutoWeek regurgitates GM's poor press release.

AutoWeek just reported GM's announcement about the "Competition Sport Package" for the Corvette. This includes decals, badges, some body paint, different colored wheels and includes the Z51 package (different gearing, stiffer suspension and cross-drilled rotors, etc.). Also a 2.73 final drive ratio is reported. And did I mention "racing style" numbers?

There are some problems here. First, the "package" does NOTHING for performance than what is already available which is the Z51 option. It's strictly for appearance purposes.

Secondly, the 2.73 final drive ratio would make the car faster, but accelerate slower than the more performance oriented 3.42 final drive ratio. So is this a typo from GM? And why didn't AutoWeek comment on this?

This will NOT "wring" a little more performance out of their cars since the performance oriented parts are ALREADY available as an option. This is just marketing to bring back some more interest in the 6th generation Corvette since plans for the 7th (C7) have been delayed.

The Corvette is a world-class from a performance standpoint. A bargain in terms of bang-for-the-buck. So the final question is this: How many posers who DON'T track their cars are going to install the racing-style numbers? And will they be wearing gold chains too?