Vs M5 (F10) vs. the Competition

[Sunny]

Doesn't matter how rich you are - there's always something else you could spend 40K on.

Ah, see Martin, that is where you are wrong. See as a die hard Mercedes fan, my life sucks in a car enthusiast forum cause you are usually at bottom end of the performance food chain. I am are always getting thrashed talked to by these "BMW boys" and having lap times been thrown at my face. So now when I get a chance to vent those years of pent up frustration vicariously through a Porsche, hell, yea it is worth every freaking cent of that 40k of imaginary monies that I never had to begin with!

 

[Guibo]

The Panamera has an exquisite interior - no question - but beyond this there is nothing that it offers me over an M5 (which in itself has a perfectly lovely cabin BTW).

How about this?

For the privilege of a naturally aspirated engine (no turbo lag and probably better sound), a slick-shifting manual, and the driving involvement that entails, you get to spend 7k euro less than the M5. For 3k Euro more than the M5, you can upgrade to 19" rims and fit carbon ceramic brakes, which I believe are not even available on the M5. Could be handy on those long downhill descents, especially with passengers and/or cargo. BMW M's tend not to have great brakes...
As for the rich, I would not understimate their propensity for making (seemingly, to us) irrational purchasing decisions with 40k. Chances are, the owner of a Panamera Turbo is deciding between a 1M or Cayman...to give to his daughter as a graduation present.

 

[klier]

^^ The M5 will come with a manual in the U.S, and Carbon brakes are close to being finished, they are in final testing stages. Just no NA engine I'm afraid And 19" is standard on the M5

Some take the Panny S over the M5, some take the Turbo over the M5, some take the Turbo S just to be safe, and there's people who would buy M5 over any Panny
The M5 does appear to be the driver's choice, though. From every Panamera the NA Panamera S offers most driver involvement.

 

[Deckhook]

I wouldn't even consider the Panamera S if I was looking at an M5, if you are considering that particular 5 series then performance is playing a very big part of your thought process. Manual may be nice but most of these cars are mile munchers and as such the semi-auto suits them best, also ceramics aren't really an issue on public roads, you simply can't reach the same kind of speeds safely as you would on the track to demand the same level of brake punishment.

The M5 is near enough perfect in it's price bracket, though the same could be said for the E63 too.

 

[Zafiro]

I despise the idea with manual gearbox in a M5 or Panamera. I hope that manual gearbox M5 stays in US. Manual gearbox works in cars like M3 and 1M but not in a 2000 kg car. Noway.

 

[klier]

I wouldn't even consider the Panamera S if I was looking at an M5, if you are considering that particular 5 series then performance is playing a very big part of your thought process. Manual may be nice but most of these cars are mile munchers and as such the semi-auto suits them best, also ceramics aren't really an issue on public roads, you simply can't reach the same kind of speeds safely as you would on the track to demand the same level of brake punishment.

The M5 is near enough perfect in it's price bracket, though the same could be said for the E63 too.

Panamera S is €8,000 more expensive than M5 in my country, Panamera 4S €10,000 more expensive.... 0-100 times in a 4S with AWD system is not that far from the M5, but the same can't be said for the RWD Panamera. The AWD system makes the Panny much more effective (almost a second quicker).
For a lot of people 4.8 seconds 0-100km/h is quick enough. They might like Porsche more, the styling of the Panny and the concept of not being a sedan but a car in no man's land between a coupe and sedan. Plus they will never take the car to a track and will find the Panny sporty enough

And for the carbon brakes.....on public roads it's better to not even have them. Carbon brakes work poor when you drive short distances, make crazy sounds when cold, and when they are hot you have to put the car in neutral at a stopping light and not hit the brakes, otherwise the ceramic discs will deform (I've driven an RS6 with ceramics). The M5 has massive brakes that get good reviews, and soon there will be ceramics that WILL work for people who frequent the Nurburgring, for example....

 

[Levi68]

Strange, I thought the other way round. Ceramics are better for street but steel are better for racing: better feel... M3 GT2, 911 GT3 racecars all run steel brakes. Even the 458 Challenge doesn't have ceramics but steel brakes.

 

[Deckhook]

Strange, I thought the other way round. Ceramics are better for street but steel are better for racing: better feel... M3 GT2, 911 GT3 racecars all run steel brakes. Even the 458 Challenge doesn't have ceramics but steel brakes.

Ceramics outperform steel under extreme use conditions, other than that I would rate steel the more desirable option to have on a road car especially one which will be of little use on a track because it's sheer weight will melt the road rubber in no time at all. Feel is the main benefit of steel and the reason why it's still the preferred choice for casual trackday cars but when you are generating upwards of 5Gs under braking and temperatures in excess of 1000C like with an F1 car then ceramics is the way to go.

The other advantage of ceramics that no one has mentioned is unsprung weight, it benefits steering feel no end. Swings and roundabouts, that you gain in steering feel you lose in brake feel.

 

[K-A]

since I dont base my car decision based on the brand/image ,I take a M5. Panamera is ugly and wouldnt not look good on my driveway.
I visited my Porsche dealer and they had this blue E63 AMG standing next to a Panamera Turbo. The Benz totally owned the Panamera. I'm sorry but the Panamera didnt evoke my feelings like the Benz did. The exterior is one big error.

This is exactly what happened to me when I went to testdrive a Panamera (V6, $86K price tag, maybe two light Options). It looked "alright", but when I parked it next to my E after the test drive, my E just blew it out of the water, which was uplifting yet interesting to me, considering I thought "How the hell would I ever justify a purchase like this now?".

IDK, I still think a heavily Optioned and lightly yet tastefully modded Panny S+ in white is hot, but if/when I was seriously ready to consider one, I just couldn't pull the trigger if it doesn't stir my emotions like the E, or a 5, etc. does, visually.

 

[Sunny]

Strange, I thought the other way round. Ceramics are better for street but steel are better for racing: better feel... M3 GT2, 911 GT3 racecars all run steel brakes. Even the 458 Challenge doesn't have ceramics but steel brakes.

Ceramics outperform steel under extreme use conditions, other than that I would rate steel the more desirable option to have on a road car especially one which will be of little use on a track because it's sheer weight will melt the road rubber in no time at all. Feel is the main benefit of steel and the reason why it's still the preferred choice for casual trackday cars but when you are generating upwards of 5Gs under braking and temperatures in excess of 1000C like with an F1 car then ceramics is the way to go.

The other advantage of ceramics that no one has mentioned is unsprung weight, it benefits steering feel no end. Swings and roundabouts, that you gain in steering feel you lose in brake feel.

Facts:

1. M3 GT2, GT3 RSR and other race cars in the category run steel brakes cause rule books say they have to.

2. The carbon-carbon brakes F1 cars use are fundamentally different from carbon ceramic brakes road cars use. The carbon carbon brakes F1 uses have very high operating temperature which make them impractical for road cars.

3. People who track their GT3 RS usually prefer steel brakes cause of lack of easily available racing pads for ceramic brakes. You can't use the racing pads for steel brakes on the ceramic brakes - it would damage them. Also if you have an off and have gravel caught between the pads and the disks, it would destroy the ceramic discs which costs a small fortune to replace compared to steel discs.

4. Advantage of ceramic brakes are lighter weight and durability - one set they should last the life of the car.

5. They don't per say have more stopping power, but lighter weight allows manufacturer's to put bigger discs which in turn increases the stopping power (also the reduced rotational mass helps).

6. As per various reviews, the new generation of ceramic brakes in 458, GT3 RS etc give as much brake feedback as the steel ones

 

[Guibo]

I wouldn't even consider the Panamera S if I was looking at an M5, if you are considering that particular 5 series then performance is playing a very big part of your thought process. Manual may be nice but most of these cars are mile munchers and as such the semi-auto suits them best, also ceramics aren't really an issue on public roads, you simply can't reach the same kind of speeds safely as you would on the track to demand the same level of brake punishment.
The M5 is near enough perfect in it's price bracket, though the same could be said for the E63 too.

I was asking martinbo, and to a greater extent those BMW fans who prize involvement over lap time bragging rights, if the involvement afforded by a manual and natural aspiration can overcome some problems with the Panamera (looks and price, with the latter now becoming a non-issue).
If you are considering this particular 5-series, performance differences not likely to be realized by most drivers is not necessarily any more a part of the thought process than matters of prestige. Per BMW M's own previous chief, Gerhard Richter, the M3 was not chosen by many simply on the basis of performance. Many chose it because they see it simply as the top of the line in that series of car and must have it.
For most people, the M5 may be the better car. I'm sure manual Panamera sales will be miniscule. If the more expensive Panameras outsell the M5, then that's something to consider. All I'm saying that within the Panamera line, there is plenty to choose from. And one model in particular that should appeal to traditional M-car enthusiasts. And they don't have to live in the US to enjoy it. Even then, it does not appear to be the half-assed hatchet job that BMW did with the E60 M5. The Panamera's manual shift has gotten good reviews for its quality of operation.
Me personally, I'd take a CTS-V wagon over the Panamera on looks alone, and we can't overlook the fact that these are ultimately emotional purchases. Value is subjective.

 

[Deckhook]

^ If Gerhard Richter felt that most M cars were purchased simply because they were the top model then who are we to argue but by the same token then those people considering an M5 won't give the Panamera S a second glance because it's not the pinnacle of the breed, that and the undeniable fact that it's performance comes up well short, though not the overall experience.

 

[martinbo]

Guibo, I don't feel that automated transmissions and driver involvement are mutually exclusive, nor do I think that AWD is necessarily a bad recipe for driver appeal either. A naturally aspirated, RWD, manual Panny S in concept is fine but in the context of the intended application, to my mind it's a mismatch of characteristics. Turbo for turbo, DCT for DCT, I have the subjective view that the M5 will appeal to me across a broader range of dynamic disciplines than the Panamera Turbo. Equally, I'd plump for an E63 AMG over a Panamera Turbo. Also there's certainly a place for a manual but not in the M5 in this day and age.

 

[GTA45E]

The Panamera has an exquisite interior - no question - but beyond this there is nothing that it offers me over an M5 (which in itself has a perfectly lovely cabin BTW).

In terms of transmission technology, they're on a par
The M5's engine appears to be a bit more special that the Panamera's
The M5 has a bigger interior and better luggage capacity
The M5 will be more economical
The M5 looks far, far nicer

There is damn good reason the Porsche is the sharper more pricise tool than the M5. It`s the engineering we simply don`t see and is the sheer value and beauty of this car. It`s not built on an "economic chassie" like the M5 and E63. It`s an exotic (much like Ferrari, if thay built one.) The transmission has to be a little more effective than the M5, the steering more precise, exc exc. How does the Porsche manage to use less hp (Panamera Turbo) than it`s compeditors yet be even quicker! how does it manage to weigh
more yet dance on the track faster than any other 4-door in the world. It all adds up to unmatched engineering precision and experience. This is what your paying for.

It`s not your Bi-Turbo V8 powered "economic-chassie" grocery getter like the M5 and E63. It`s the real deal. This is one of the reasons I wouldn`t compare it to anything under it`s class.

 

[Sunny]

The transmission has to be a little more effective than the M5

Why does it "have to be little more effective"? Is it ordained by god? Do you have even one iota of evidence to prove it is "little more effective"? If you actually bothered to read some reviews according to almost have only superlatives things to say about the DCT in M5 and one says it is even as good as the one in the 458 which is the golden standard of DCTs at the moment.

the steering more precise, exc exc

Why?Most reviews have complained about lack of steering feel in Panamera Turbo - and how RWD Panamera S is better in that respect.

How does the Porsche manage to use less hp (Panamera Turbo) than it`s compeditors yet be even quicker!

It is called AWD, look it up. It increases the traction allowing a car to accelerate faster but comes with other disadvantages like make the steering feel more numb and reducing the fun factor - why Porsche still sticks to RWD for their GT cars.

It`s not your Bi-Turbo V8 powered "economic-chassie" grocery getter like the M5 and E63. It`s the real deal.

If you knew any better, you would know 5 series uses 7er chassis, which most people with reasonable amount of common sense would say is not exactly a "economic-chassis grocery getter" but then again that assumes "reasonable amount of common sense" on the part of the subject, so my apologies if I set the bar too high.

 

[K-A]

Of course the 5/7 chassis is an economical chassis. It's shared throughout the entire range of BMW Corp. cars practically. That, and it doesn't exactly use the most advanced/low-weight materials either, hence the massive weight of a car as small as a 5-Series.

The Panamera chassis is designed bespoke for that car, and whether or not that means anything to an individual, it's part of the "Magic factor" priced into the car.

People forget that the Panamera should be heavier than a 5-Series by a good margin. It's a much bigger car, AWD, MUCH wider, and is in the Class of the S/7 cars. Not to mention, it's more luxurious and should be more substantial (based on price and market-class).

Arguing that performance is what justifies the price-premium of a Panamera over an M5 is a losing game. Sure, it performs and should perform a bit better, but the real price-premium comes from the other areas: Cache, luxury, exclusivity, expected build code (probably not a margin here, as I doubt it's built "better" than a 5-Series/E-Class, but you'd expect it to at least appear that way in the more detailed areas), materials, "bragging rights", Porsche badge D), etc.

 

[Guibo]

^ If Gerhard Richter felt that most M cars were purchased simply because they were the top model then who are we to argue but by the same token then those people considering an M5 won't give the Panamera S a second glance because it's not the pinnacle of the breed, that and the undeniable fact that it's performance comes up well short, though not the overall experience.

Some of those will have no choice with regard to the pinnacle of Porsches: They cannot afford them. Some who can may not buy the Panamera anyway, for reasons that have nothing to do with performance (looks, past preference for BMWs, etc). Again, these are emotional values.

 

[Sunny]

Of course the 5/7 chassis is an economical chassis. It's shared throughout the entire range of BMW Corp. cars practically.

Really? 5/7 and RR ghost is the entire range of BMW corp? I guess I set the bat too high for you too.

And what when next Panamera comes along that will share the chassis with A7/A8 and Bentley? According to your logic it will be cheaper cause the chassis is not bespoke any more but I bet my left ball it won't be.

That, and it doesn't exactly use the most advanced/low-weight materials either

Really? what materials does it use? Can you list them by % and grade? and what about Panamera chassis? can you list that too?

hence the massive weight of a car as small as a 5-Series.

Or it is because it has one of highest torsional rigid chassis among sedans - 35000 NM/deg, a whopping 55% more than E60 and even more than exotic sports cars like Zonda F (27000 Nm/deg) and Carrera GT (26000 Nm/deg)! And that is your vanilla 5er, not M5 which has more chassis stiffening.

 

[klier]

There is damn good reason the Porsche is the sharper more pricise tool than the M5. It`s the engineering we simply don`t see and is the sheer value and beauty of this car. It`s not built on an "economic chassie" like the M5 and E63. It`s an exotic (much like Ferrari, if thay built one.) The transmission has to be a little more effective than the M5, the steering more precise, exc exc. How does the Porsche manage to use less hp (Panamera Turbo) than it`s compeditors yet be even quicker! how does it manage to weigh
more yet dance on the track faster than any other 4-door in the world. It all adds up to unmatched engineering precision and experience. This is what your paying for.

It`s not your Bi-Turbo V8 powered "economic-chassie" grocery getter like the M5 and E63. It`s the real deal. This is one of the reasons I wouldn`t compare it to anything under it`s class.

Sunny said most thank God, but I just want to add: Just look at the Panamera S vs Panamera 4S numbers, and them come back on why the Panamera Turbo S is faster than a RWD M5..

 

[klier]

People forget that the Panamera should be heavier than a 5-Series by a good margin. It's a much bigger car, AWD, MUCH wider, and is in the Class of the S/7 cars. Not to mention, it's more luxurious and should be more substantial (based on price and market-class).

This is the correct part, the rest is desperate fanboy rambling Not that I care, I just like pointing it out for the unaware reader.
The Panamera chassis is bespoke for that car because Porsche simply has no other car for it. Be sure other variants will follow on that platform or on the next gen platform to increase profits. The next gen Panny will share platform and electrical systems with Bentley and Audi, btw.
And there's already engines in the Panamera not made by Porsche. Not exactly a magic factor to have an Audi A4 diesel engine in the Panamera, right? And I'm sure the Touareg platform below the Cayenne is part of you magic factor too?

Some of the things you think of are even more crazy than what I say, hehehe.