S-Class (W221) 2007-2013: S 320 CDI, S 350, S 450, S 500, S 550, S 420 CDI, S 600

Porsche Panamera Dud?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 11-04-2009, 10:26 AM
  #26  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Red Marko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Poconos, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,007
Received 58 Likes on 52 Posts
Protecting the Earth from the Scum of the Universe
Going back to the original OP,
Panamera IS as ugly as Aztec.
It is as ugly as ... Rosie O'Donnell
Old 11-04-2009, 03:19 PM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
LSM777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2012 MB CLS 550
Originally Posted by markopolo
Going back to the original OP,
Panamera IS as ugly as Aztec.
It is as ugly as ... Rosie O'Donnell
Rosie O'Donnel may possibly look better.....
Old 11-04-2009, 05:28 PM
  #28  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
absent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kenilworth, il usa
Posts: 2,924
Received 378 Likes on 244 Posts
'22 Alpina B7,'21 G63 Renntech obviously (wife), Wrangler(kids)
Wink

Originally Posted by LSM777
Rosie O'Donnel may possibly look better.....
No car,no matter how ugly ,deserves to be compared to Rosie.
Obviously you are seeing some traces of attractiveness in her.
That's sick......
Old 11-04-2009, 05:30 PM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
LSM777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2012 MB CLS 550
Originally Posted by absent
No car,no matter how ugly ,deserves to be compared to Rosie.
Obviously you are seeing some traces of attractiveness in her.
That's sick......
hahahahaha LOLOLOLOL
Old 11-05-2009, 04:34 PM
  #30  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
vonbeeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North San Diego
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2005 Range Rover HSE, 2008 BMW M3 Cab d/c, 2010 GL550 (wifes), 1993 Porsche 928GTS 32kmi garage quee
Originally Posted by dbtk
I agree on the Panamera's challenging styling, however, when it comes to its 0-60 mph performance 3.5 sec (C&D and R&T) is pretty impressive for a 4,500 lb sports sedan. So now, the new 997.2 with PDK can do under 4 sec with "only 385" (from a NA engine).
The 3.5 stat is obviously for the turbo $150k car which I agree is impressive and should be for the price.My problem is the lackluster performance from base model at $100k+. I guess for me the point is Porsche was always way above in performance and at the $100k base model its just mediocre.

Originally Posted by Oliverk

Porsche is about balance, not massive HP. 385bhp with a 3300lb curb weight makes for a pretty good performing vehicle. It won't be a rocketship, but again, straight line acceleration is not what a Porsche is for.

If you gave a 997 Carrera S a good work out on a road course, you'd realize that 385bhp is more than enough for most drivers.
I have not owned but rented a 997 Carrera S for a few days as I wanted to consider purchase. As fun as the driving experience was for me the biggest obstacle that I couldn't overcome at $105k was lack of power and lack of sound. Before my recent purchase of M3 cab I almost bought a 09 911turbo cab. Sweet deal with 400miles about $25koff. It did have the power but still lacking the sound and again after sales tax it was still $135k. Let me say this M3 cab has the sound, enough power, is faster around the track than Carrera S (R&T I think), and the handling is really super surprising all for $60K ($22k off 6000 miles). and I have kids and a usable rear seat

So in summary as of late Porsche has been too much $ for not enough performance for me. It wasn't always that way and I still have plenty of Porsche posters in my garage.
Old 11-05-2009, 07:18 PM
  #31  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Quadcammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes on 32 Posts
96 and 08 911 turbos
Thats why the Porsche offers the GT cars. Raw, loud, and more powerful.

I recall the M3 vs porsche argument, but I believe that was a standard carrera, not an S.
Old 11-05-2009, 07:35 PM
  #32  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
transferred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
I don't like convertible M cars...they are always FAR heavier than their fixed head counterparts. The M6 convertible weighs almost 500lbs more than the M5 for christ sakes....new conv M3 is way heavier too...
Old 11-05-2009, 08:48 PM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
kafklatsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 415
Received 158 Likes on 92 Posts
All Cars Lost To Hurricane Isaac (W124 E420 revived - added 88 Allante 14 S550, 17 S63
As a lover of performance... Porsche is at the top of the heap. I would only own the GT ($$$), as I dont like any other Porsche styling. The few that I have riden in are near race car harsh.

That aside, The performance of porsches when the company chooses is nearly untouchable across the lineup. The vision of a GT accelerating to 200mph makes me shake my head in amazement.

If one can not agree on the performance that porsche engineers into these vehicles then there really is no further reason to discuss the issue.

I just am not a porsche man.... I like Benz


Originally Posted by transferred
I don't like convertible M cars...they are always FAR heavier than their fixed head counterparts. The M6 convertible weighs almost 500lbs more than the M5 for christ sakes....new conv M3 is way heavier too...
Old 11-05-2009, 08:57 PM
  #34  
Senior Member
 
LSM777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2012 MB CLS 550
Originally Posted by vonbeeler
The 3.5 stat is obviously for the turbo $150k car which I agree is impressive and should be for the price.My problem is the lackluster performance from base model at $100k+. I guess for me the point is Porsche was always way above in performance and at the $100k base model its just mediocre.



I have not owned but rented a 997 Carrera S for a few days as I wanted to consider purchase. As fun as the driving experience was for me the biggest obstacle that I couldn't overcome at $105k was lack of power and lack of sound. Before my recent purchase of M3 cab I almost bought a 09 911turbo cab. Sweet deal with 400miles about $25koff. It did have the power but still lacking the sound and again after sales tax it was still $135k. Let me say this M3 cab has the sound, enough power, is faster around the track than Carrera S (R&T I think), and the handling is really super surprising all for $60K ($22k off 6000 miles). and I have kids and a usable rear seat

So in summary as of late Porsche has been too much $ for not enough performance for me. It wasn't always that way and I still have plenty of Porsche posters in my garage.

Wow, i couldnt disagree more....your 4000lb M3 convertible handles better than a Carrera S which weighs 3200 lbs and has almost as much power Lack of power? what the 15-20 extra hp your M3 has with an extra 800lbs makes it more powerful?? i dont think so...Come on bro....And Porsche's are much more involving/better handling/sharper as well...the Carrerra S will beat the M3 in every single acceleration category as well...Its faster than the M3 coupe which weighs 400lbs less than your Cabrio but nontheless still a porker at 3600-3700lbs...The M3 has completely become a GT car increasing weight every year and losing some handling....Dont get me wrong the M3 is a great car, I love it, but its in a different stratosphere than any Porsche....You want louder opt for PSE....
Old 11-05-2009, 09:00 PM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
LSM777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2012 MB CLS 550
Originally Posted by Oliverk
Thats why the Porsche offers the GT cars. Raw, loud, and more powerful.

I recall the M3 vs porsche argument, but I believe that was a standard carrera, not an S.
Or granted the Turbo is more but for a 3k chip and 3k exhaust its loud and scary and I mean scary fast with 580hp and 580lb/ft

Lou
Old 11-05-2009, 09:03 PM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
LSM777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2012 MB CLS 550
Someone mentioned the Panamera's lackluster performance on the standard models...Yea its 400hp, but i guarantee that will equate to mid 4's 60 times even at 4000lbs on the base model..Porsche is notorious from getting more from less HP than others manufacturers solutions of bigger engines in ever portlier cars....The carrera S runs sub 4 second 60 times with 385 hp....

Lou
Old 11-05-2009, 09:34 PM
  #37  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
transferred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
Originally Posted by LSM777
Wow, i couldnt disagree more....your 4000lb M3 convertible handles better than a Carrera S which weighs 3200 lbs and has almost as much power Lack of power? what the 15-20 extra hp your M3 has with an extra 800lbs makes it more powerful?? i dont think so...Come on bro....And Porsche's are much more involving/better handling/sharper as well...the Carrerra S will beat the M3 in every single acceleration category as well...Its faster than the M3 coupe which weighs 400lbs less than your Cabrio but nontheless still a porker at 3600-3700lbs...The M3 has completely become a GT car increasing weight every year and losing some handling....Dont get me wrong the M3 is a great car, I love it, but its in a different stratosphere than any Porsche....You want louder opt for PSE....
Fair views, maybe a little extreme but I hear you. However, M3 GTS puts that right...3285lbs w/ 450bhp. It hits the streets in europe early next year
Old 11-06-2009, 10:10 AM
  #38  
Member
 
1998CLK320's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1998 CLK 320
Merc just needs to stop making huge engines and americanizing themselves

Tell me why my 3.2 liter w208 engine is the same size as my bros e46 M3 3.2 as well?

His engine would destroy mine.

If they want to be more fuel efficient they need to get more out of the engine the same way Porsche and BMW do. Porsche especially.

The SLK 32 supercharged is ridiculously fast and the same engine size as mine
Old 11-06-2009, 12:10 PM
  #39  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Quadcammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes on 32 Posts
96 and 08 911 turbos
Originally Posted by 1998CLK320
Merc just needs to stop making huge engines and americanizing themselves

Tell me why my 3.2 liter w208 engine is the same size as my bros e46 M3 3.2 as well?

His engine would destroy mine.

If they want to be more fuel efficient they need to get more out of the engine the same way Porsche and BMW do. Porsche especially.

The SLK 32 supercharged is ridiculously fast and the same engine size as mine
MB has a much much much larger product line than Porsche, and they need a fuel efficient, quiet, smooth engine for lower end cars, such as the 3.2L 6 or the 3.5L 6. They are not the most powerful, but they meet the needs of the consumer.

The standard engine in the boxster is not exactly mind blowing either.

That said, I agree to some extent about MB's purpose. They build executive led sleds. Big, heavy, with huge power. then again, thats what they are good at, so why not do it.
Old 11-06-2009, 01:22 PM
  #40  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
vonbeeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North San Diego
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2005 Range Rover HSE, 2008 BMW M3 Cab d/c, 2010 GL550 (wifes), 1993 Porsche 928GTS 32kmi garage quee
[QUOTE=vonbeeler;3797915] I guess for me the point is Porsche was always way above in performance and at the $100k base model its just mediocre.

So in summary as of late Porsche has been too much $ for not enough performance for me. QUOTE]

I am repeating myself because I don't think it came across the first time....
So In summary: AS OF LATE, Porsche has been too much $ for not enough performance for me.

Originally Posted by LSM777
Wow, i couldn't disagree more....your 4000lb M3 convertible handles better than a Carrera S which weighs 3200 lbs and has almost as much power Lack of power? what the 15-20 extra hp your M3 has with an extra 800lbs makes it more powerful?? i dont think so...Come on bro....And Porsche's are much more involving/better handling/sharper as well...the Carrerra S will beat the M3 in every single acceleration category as well...Its faster than the M3 coupe which weighs 400lbs less than your Cabrio but nontheless still a porker at 3600-3700lbs...The M3 has completely become a GT car increasing weight every year and losing some handling....Dont get me wrong the M3 is a great car, I love it, but its in a different stratosphere than any Porsche....You want louder opt for PSE....
I wasn't trying to compare head to head even though they almost do. I was using the M3 as illustration that the Porsche is too much $ for the performance or lack thereof at its price point.

Originally Posted by LSM777
Someone mentioned the Panamera's lackluster performance on the standard models...Yea its 400hp,....The carrera S runs sub 4 second 60 times with 385 hp....

Lou
To further the debate of too much $ for not enough performance. Here is another illustration: I just sold a base 5 year old Corvette with Z-51 pkg that was more HP, 3200lbs, a lot more torque, handled 95% as well, for a paltry $27 grand. So when I look at a brand new 911 S with less overall performance for $105,000 its just not very motivating and actually disappointing.
Old 11-06-2009, 01:23 PM
  #41  
Member
 
1998CLK320's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1998 CLK 320
That's true
I have the Merc cuz its a status car

As far as performance it can dance but I dont hang my hat on it.
However no car can be as comfortable and quiet as a Merc, NO CAR

I am young and just looking to get a bit more thrill out of my ride, thats all
Old 11-06-2009, 01:52 PM
  #42  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Quadcammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes on 32 Posts
96 and 08 911 turbos
Originally Posted by vonbeeler

To further the debate of too much $ for not enough performance. Here is another illustration: I just sold a base 5 year old Corvette with Z-51 pkg that was more HP, 3200lbs, a lot more torque, handled 95% as well, for a paltry $27 grand. So when I look at a brand new 911 S with less overall performance for $105,000 its just not very motivating and actually disappointing.
Using the corvette comparison renders just about every sports car out there as not enough performance for the price. Its a great bang for the buck, but thats not what all sports cars are about.
Old 11-06-2009, 02:17 PM
  #43  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Carl Lassiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.A., CA
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
[QUOTE=vonbeeler;3799289]
Originally Posted by vonbeeler
I guess for me the point is Porsche was always way above in performance and at the $100k base model its just mediocre.

So in summary as of late Porsche has been too much $ for not enough performance for me. QUOTE]

I am repeating myself because I don't think it came across the first time....
So In summary: AS OF LATE, Porsche has been too much $ for not enough performance for me.



I wasn't trying to compare head to head even though they almost do. I was using the M3 as illustration that the Porsche is too much $ for the performance or lack thereof at its price point.



To further the debate of too much $ for not enough performance. Here is another illustration: I just sold a base 5 year old Corvette with Z-51 pkg that was more HP, 3200lbs, a lot more torque, handled 95% as well, for a paltry $27 grand. So when I look at a brand new 911 S with less overall performance for $105,000 its just not very motivating and actually disappointing.
You are confusing power with performance. The former is 0-60, 0-100 etc while the latter involves suspension geometry, braking, throttle response, steering feel etc, the combination of which adds up to a fun car that can turn in quick lap times. A 997 S does not have "less overall performance" than a C5. At all.

Until you realize performance is not all BHP, torque and drag racing then there is not much that can be done. If you are after hp/$ then Porsche is not the brand for you, but then if you want hp/lb then I don't think MB is either.
Old 11-06-2009, 03:09 PM
  #44  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
vonbeeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North San Diego
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2005 Range Rover HSE, 2008 BMW M3 Cab d/c, 2010 GL550 (wifes), 1993 Porsche 928GTS 32kmi garage quee
[QUOTE=Carl Lassiter;3799376]
Originally Posted by vonbeeler

You are confusing power with performance. The former is 0-60, 0-100 etc while the latter involves suspension geometry, braking, throttle response, steering feel etc, the combination of which adds up to a fun car that can turn in quick lap times. A 997 S does not have "less overall performance" than a C5. At all.

Until you realize performance is not all BHP, torque and drag racing then there is not much that can be done. If you are after hp/$ then Porsche is not the brand for you, but then if you want hp/lb then I don't think MB is either.
Good points Carl. I understand hp is not performance. However the power delivery is part of the overall package. When considering $100k+ purchase if one element of the overall performance (hp) is disappointing and a prospective customer comes away unsatisfied then it will certainly affect the purchase decision. I am generally disappointed, at the price, that there is not more of that part of the overall package.
Old 11-06-2009, 03:36 PM
  #45  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Quadcammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes on 32 Posts
96 and 08 911 turbos
Its all a trade off. Porsche gives you less power, but better handling, braking, and steering feel than almost anything on the planet. MB gives you power, but huge weight, quiet, and dodgy steering and handling.

Corvettes give you good power, almost zero steering feel, decent handling, and pretty sad interior materials and build quality.
Old 11-06-2009, 10:26 PM
  #46  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
vonbeeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: North San Diego
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2005 Range Rover HSE, 2008 BMW M3 Cab d/c, 2010 GL550 (wifes), 1993 Porsche 928GTS 32kmi garage quee
Originally Posted by Carl Lassiter

A 997 S does not have "less overall performance" than a C5. At all.
Its C6 and yes a 997 S does have less overall performance. Its tough to swallow but thats how weak 911's have become while everyone else is increasing their game.

If I wanted a paltry 385 hp with the best handling and true passion, I would just buy a 15 year old Ferrari ala F355.

385 is weak by todays standards. WEAK
Old 11-07-2009, 01:16 AM
  #47  
Member
 
usctrojans1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2010 S600 sold
Originally Posted by Oliverk
Its all a trade off. Porsche gives you less power, but better handling, braking, and steering feel than almost anything on the planet. MB gives you power, but huge weight, quiet, and dodgy steering and handling.

Corvettes give you good power, almost zero steering feel, decent handling, and pretty sad interior materials and build quality.
Excellent point on the Corvette, especially on the steering feel.
Old 11-07-2009, 06:28 PM
  #48  
Member
 
13pauls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NYC area
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
10 S550 4matic Palladium, 12 G550 Edition Select Silver, 10 BMW 128i Cabrio Blue Water
Originally Posted by jtanoyo1
Guys, it's a Porsche. No matter what you say, a Porsche will always be cooler than a Merc.

Nuff said.
It is a horrible looking vehicle, Porsche may be cool to you, but I would never buy one in any range, there is a Mercedes which is always better, all the way from Boxter to Carrerra GT to C class to SLR. IMHO.
Old 11-07-2009, 11:38 PM
  #49  
Senior Member
 
carsnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
2007 S 600 / '06 911 Porsche C4S cab
As an S 600 and 911 C4S driver, I can tell you that both are fantastic.
The 911 is a true sports car. However, I'd never change my S sedan for a Panamera. The Panamera is meant to be a sports car with room for 4. That's it.
The S class has comfort, lots of room and everything you could want in a car.
Just ask WSH and he'll give you all the adjectives/slashes/descriptions/ you need to realize that the S is at the top of the heap of sedans. The Panamera won't hold a candle to an S sedan.
Old 11-08-2009, 11:55 AM
  #50  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Quadcammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clifton, NJ
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes on 32 Posts
96 and 08 911 turbos
Originally Posted by 13pauls
It is a horrible looking vehicle, Porsche may be cool to you, but I would never buy one in any range, there is a Mercedes which is always better, all the way from Boxter to Carrerra GT to C class to SLR. IMHO.
Um, what car does mercedes make that is better than a 911, a 911 S, a 911 turbo, 911 GT2, 911 GT3, or 911 GT3-RS.

The SL? The CLK BS? Never in a million years.


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: Porsche Panamera Dud?



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:18 AM.