TTAC used to have a writer who’d critique new car designs from the aesthetic point-of-view. Unfortunately, Carl stopped working at Starbuck’s, so I couldn’t hassle him for free coffee– I mean clean copy. So when I received an email update from Classic Driver promising a design analysis of the Porsche Panamera, I was well up for a professional’s analysis of what looks, to me, like another hideous Porsche. By the sixth paragraph, I knew Chris Hrabalek was prevaricating. And then he gets nasty, pulling rank on readers.
“Although one could hardly call the styling of the new Panamera revolutionary, neither can one accuse it of having anything but pure Porsche DNA. While it’s certain that numerous sofa-referees will judge the styling as too conservative and unimaginative, it is far removed from the Aston Martin DB9 LWB (akaAston Martin Rapide). Also, while the Panamera shares common parts with its siblings, none are too obvious. Visually, it is a far more distinct model than, say, the products of the Porsche 996/Boxster era.” Where’s the beef? “It leaves us in no doubt that, were the front badge to be removed, this car would still be readily identified as a true Porsche. It’s true that, unlike the Porsche 928, it does not take a stylistic risk.”
That’s it? Sigh. OK, over to you, TTAC’s Best and Brightest. What do you make of the new Porsche Panamera?
I like it. I like it a lot.
But I am not an old car guy, a Porsche traditionalist, or an aficionado. Heck, I’ve never even been in a Porsche.
My only issue is the creasing of the hood. Otherwise, I think it is phenomenal.
A lot of people, the “traditionalists”, protested the designated hitter in baseball, but that seems to have worked out fine.
Anyway, they stand to sell about 50 of these a year, so what’s the big deal?
It’s hideous like the Cayenne, but I don’t care because it means the engineering is done for PDK in the 911 Turbo.
It’s supposed to look a LOT better in person, but come to think of it that guy telling me that was a Porsche salesman buddy I bumped into at the gym.
However, if the abomination that is the Cayenne gave us the Cayman (arguably the best Porsche since the 993), what will the proceeds of the Panamera sire? An even smaller and lighter car, we can only hope!
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said “it doesn’t look like a Porsche.” There’s no brand identity anywhere in it, really.
The proportions are just all wrong. I mean, the finished product looks WAY better than I feared it would after seeing the spy shots and concept drawings… But it’s still just a big mish-mash. The front end looks more Ferrari F430 than Porsche 911. The sides reek of Mercedes and the ass end just doesn’t come together with the rest of the car. I have to wonder if my mind would change had there been some semblence of a trunk behind the c-pillar, rather than trying (and failing) to make a sedan look good with a 911 fastback-style rear.
Well, it’s certainly “different”. I completely disagree that this car doesn’t take a stylistic risk. What does it look like? Nothing else on the road, that’s for sure.
I happen to be a fan of “weird” cars and would much rather drive something that very few people have… so long as it performs and I can afford it. This car is definitely weird, will undoubtedly perform very well and will most assuredly be priced beyond my means.
I really dislike the profile and rear though.
The only thing Porsche about it is the front end treatment otherwise it is a mish mash of styling cues.
People who like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they like.
Conveniently, those are also the same people who will merrily plunk down $120K for a new car in an economy like this.
I suppose buyers would have been disappointed by an updated 989, styling buck circa 1990.
So, they had to stylistically drive far, far away, until they hit a wall. Repeatedly.
Sir Mix-a-lot, your car is ready.
I find myself thinking “Forgot about it being a Porsche. If GM, Ford, Chrysler designed this what would you think?” Crap comes to mind more often than not.
It looks like someone dragged it out the hurtlocker and whooped it with the ugly stick.
Easily the Aztek of Porsches.
Looking at the Panamera cues a song from the latest Rolling Stones CD: They Saw You Coming.
Its definitely “Porsche” and its definitely unique. But, that doesn’t mean its not weird looking. It just seems conflicted to me. Like it can’t figure out if its a coupe or a sedan or something else entirely.
I am sure it will be a performer though and I’ll be anxious to see how many show up at the track. Maybe then I’ll be able to appreciate it more.
it’s looks like porsche tried to design a chrysler.
Viewed at any angle but dead-on face-to-face, it’s astoundingly ugly.
The Rapide and Estoque are far more attractive than this.
creamy:
it’s looks like porsche tried to design a chrysler.
Yes, it does appear to have some Crossfire DNA going for it.
I really like it. Not that I can ever afford a Porsche period, but if I would uber rich and wanted to haul my family, this would be my car of choice!
It definitely looks Porsche — the rear end and especially the front are very typical Porsche.
It’s just… a stretch 911. It looks like someone started to make a 911 limo, and just said “screw it” and quit after the first row of extra seats.
It’s not an attractive car, but what makes it worse is how much the Rapide shows that it can be done right. This car is an ungainly, misproportioned mess.
At it’s best, it’s aesthetically a mixed bag. From the front, a bit of Cayenne (not the best starting point), a bit of Ferrari and too much Chrysler. Actually, Chrysler-ness seems to be present from every angle, though I don’t know that it’s always Chrysler-like, but the whole design-by-committee feel of the designs.
And I disagree that it’s instantly recognizable as a Porsche. You show a picture of this without a badge to somebody who has never heard of it, and I’m certain you would get as many wrong guesses as right. Though I expect if you told them it was a Porsche, they could see the resemblance to the Cayenne, though not to any Porsche car.
I have but one question:
Show me a rear-three-quarter shot.
The photos above are this car’s best angles, and it looks halfway between a Carrera GT in the details and a squished Cayenne in proportion. That’s not really that bad.
The rear quarter view, though, was where it falls down. It’s telling that they aren’t among the press shots.
Four generations ago, my family built wagons in Sankt Basien, 65 miles south of Stuttgart. We quit the business and moved to America out of the fear we might someday build a vehicle as ugly as this.
How dare they bring up the 928 in this context. That car was classic, its only failing was that is was not a 911.
That first photo really brings out the sheer hideousness of the thing. Reminds me of a woman who has had way too much plastic surgery and still thinks she is beautiful.
I’m waiting to see it in person before passing judgment on it. I think others should, too.
For what it’s worth, I think the Acura TL that everyone was dumping on yesterday looks a lot better in person than in photos. Some cars are just like that. I say, wait and see.
I’d buy it if I could be assured that others would only see it from the right front quarter in fading sunlight.
While I don’t necessarily think it looks awful, I think where it fails is that it looks undesirable. When you are selling a car for $80,000+ (maybe even more), people should lust for it. I would say thats why the Aston Martin Rapid is a design success because it looks great. I do not think that many prepubescent boys are going to be hanging posters of the panamera on their walls, and that’s exactly the problem.
In terms of design, I would say it is lacking the crisp, clean looks of the 911. The bulges on the hood look like they were taken off a Ferrari, and the headlights came from a Corvette. Not bad looking cars, but when you have a design heritage as good as porsche’s I would expect something better executed. I have to say, it would be hard to purchase a panamera over an S550 or maybe even a CLS.
If what you want is snob appeal and beauty, there are plenty of better choices.
Should be named the Porsche Crossfire. Unfortunately, everything behind the A pillar has the same silhouette as a turd. A trunk would probably save this car.
Some women are beautiful when they are 19. If they smoke too many cigarettes, spend to much time tanning, have too much cosmetic surgery, and put on too much weight, they bear the same aesthetic relation to their former selves that the current “911” bears the same relation to the original 911.
The Panamera is, in turn, like the old woman’s brother, who became a biker and lived a very dissolute life.
It’s too tall.
The question is not whether its Porshce but whether the money could be spent on a Mercedes – or even more exotic makes for the same $120K.
I’m sorry. This thing is a pig even though it will certainly look better in the flesh.
The front is Zuffenhausen meets Maranello.
The side is a Corvette hockey stick below the CrossFire’s accent line.
The rear reminds me of a 411 (pure automotive prowess, that one… http://www.motorbase.com/profiles/vehicle/picture.ehtml?i=1409463546;p=-2068349260 )
It looks like crap.
“Hello. 911. My Sebring has been vandalized. Someone put a fake Porsche nose from J.C. Whitney on it.”
This thing is NOT “the Aztek of Porsches”, however.
The Cayenne was Porsche’s miserable attempt at re-creating the greatest crossover yet produced.
Companies should stick with their competencies.
GM should never attempt a rear-engine or mid-engine sports car EVER AGAIN!!! And Porsche should send the Panamera to the crusher ASAP.
All of the car enthusiasts from the forums I’ve visited have pretty much agreed that the Panamera is awful.
Jeremy Clarkson was right when he said Porsche designers are lazy. The front end styling is nice because they didn’t do much.
The rear styling is shameful. I can’t believe that this the best the designers came up with. A fastback 4 door? Oh come on.
I predict this car will be a flop. There are so many performance 4 doors on the market that look so much better. Actually ALL of the performance 4 doors look better.
Robert Schwartz :
That was one of the best descriptions of a car I’ve ever read
My basic complaint about contemporary styling is that it has too often become divorced from a vehicle’s engineering. Thus, you get “styling exercises” like the New Beetle or the two-seater T-Bird that do look somewhat like the original but lack all of their essential spirit — to the point where they are rather embarrassing. I mean, really, what’s so romantic about driving the final T-Bird, which had become the world’s fattest two seater?
I can’t imagine that any gearhead would confuse a Panamerica with a Ferrari, Corvette or Crossfire. I also give Porsche credit for having the balls to come out with a full fastback, which is almost unheard of among sedans (for good aesthetic reasons, I should quickly add).
In addition, the fact that styling isn’t this car’s forte shouldn’t necessarily be a deal killer. As other TTAC commentators have previously stated, Porsche’s strength has never been styling per se.
Where I think the Panamerica fails is that its engineering is entirely too conventional. The basic layout is all but indistinguishable from what a four-door Corvette would look like — a bloated Hollywood cruiser.
Imagine what this car would look like if Porsche had maintained its traditional emphasis on light weight, nimble size and a rear engine. The Panamerica would have the grace of a gazelle rather than an aging Liz Taylor.
Yes, one can rightfully — nay, indignantly — critique such design flourishes as the ungodly fender creases. But that’s superficial stuff. The Porsche soul has been sold off in a quest for “product rationalization.”
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. Best focus on who will emerge as the next Porsche.
Porschephiles are aghast. Offended. Incensed even.
This, sir, is an abomination. An affront to the brand. A dilution of Porsche’s sportscar DNA…
Where have we heard this before?
Oh, that’s right. Cayenne circa 2003/04.
Porschephiles did not buy the Porsche trucklette, but plenty of traditional soovie buyers with large bank did.
Oodles and oodles of cash poured in from the vehicle decried as sacrilege by the purists.
Finally, even purists actually took a look at the Cayenne from a performance perspective and said, “Goodness, if Porsche built an SUV, it’d be this. And…it is! Hmmm, not so bad after all.”
And so it shall be again with Panamera. Or so Porsche hopes.
The cash lightening may not strike twice though (not that it matters to the best hedge-managers- disguised-as-a-car-company in the world). Rich car buyers looking for the latest flavor are not quite as flush with discretionary cash as they were four-five years ago.
And purists certainly have no place in the heart or garage for a Panamera. At least, not yet. And probably, not ever.
As for as my own take on the design?
I agree with several commentors above. Looks like someone tried to stretch a 996. The result sucks. All over.
Add some 24″ dubs and you got what some peeps with, umm, different tastes have had for years: a low-riding Cayenne. Move along, nothing to see here except perhaps the cover pic of next week’s Weekly World News (with the Bat Boy behind the wheel no less)
Ever see as the film As Good as It Gets? When Greg Kinnear is bedridden in the hospital…. and his friend & art dealer come see how he is recovering from a severe beating/home invasion. That reaction Cuba Gooding Jr. and Yeardley Smith had is about what I felt when I first saw the Panamera.
Looks worse than the Cayenne, which I’d have previously thought un-possible.
Compared to the Estoque and Rapide, to say nothing of the Audi Sportback concept/A7, it’s even more mis-guided.
Tragic that this is the best Porsh-Uhh could do. No wonder they wanted controlling interest in VAG – now they can snag daSilva from Audi, and get serious about a new direction for Porsche design.
“… were the front badge to be removed, this car would still be readily identified as a true Porsche.”
The only reason he can say that is due to the headlights being like other modern Porsches. So what?
The side view of the car is simply hideous. Compare it to the elegance and grace of ancient designs like the Citroen DS or the Series II Jaguar XJ6 and it doesn’t hold a candle to them.
“The single most important skill for a successful car designer is to convince the audience that the final result, as presented, is the best of the many, many possible solutions to a problem.” If so, Porsche flunks the test.
Classic Driver didn’t bother to mention that Mr. Hrabalek is a longtime flak for Porsche/VW. Check out his Wikipedia entry: “Christian Hrabalek (1977- ) (commonly known as Chris Hrabalek or Hrabi) is an Austrian automotive designer and automotive strategy consultant and currently director of Fenomenon Ltd.
Hrabalek was born in Vienna, Austria and obtained three university degrees in International Business (European Business School of London), Marketing (Kingston University) and Vehicle Design (Royal College of Art, London). He began his career at Porsche in 1997 were he worked for the Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Mr. Hans Riedl, before moving on to Audi in 1998, Volkswagen in 1999, Lancia in 2000, Design Center Europe- Volkswagen Group from 2001 to 2002, BMW in 2003 and Škoda in 2004.”
He wins the triple crown. Educated in business-speak, self-righteous artist speak and the affectatious use of cutsie spelling errors to get attention. I wonder if he is under contract with Porsche at this very moment.
Richard Chen,
Thanks for the link to the 989. That is the car they should have built – a rear-engined four door sports car. That would be unique. The Panamera reminds me of a shrunken Cayenne or a BMW X6 (in appeal not looks). Does anyone know about pricing? If it what I’ve heard, I’d much rather have a Maserati.
Bring me a 2dr version and call it a 928 and ill forgive you.
i like everything until you get to the back. it needs a more defined trunk rather then some kinda 911 hatch thingy.
A hell of a lot better than the Cayenne. But has some busy lines that don’t need to be there. B (and I grade hard)
I think this needs to be looked at from a different perspective. If this vehicle were sitting on another company’s display stand at, say, an Asian Car Show, everyone (and I’m pretty confident, everyone) would be talking about what a lame attempt to design something that sort of looks like a Porsche, but missed by a country mile. (And Porsche should probably sue).
Now back to reality. The fact that Porsche apparently did this of its own free will is simply stunning.
@essen: 989 was FR, just like the Panamera.
And who was in charge of Porsche back then? Ulrich Bez, who now runs Aston Martin.
WHY??? In God’s name…WHY???
I guess I’m in the minority here, but I don’t think it’s a bad-looking car at all. The shape of the profile from the C-pillar back is unfortunate, but from the car’s better angles (nearly head-on or nearly rear-on) it even looks like a Porsche.
Definitely not the prettiest car on the block, but just because there are prettier cars doesn’t mean that everything else is ugly.
As for the Cayenne, while I won’t try to defend it (I’m not a big fan of it myself), I don’t see how one could claim that Porschephiles didn’t buy it. More than a few local PCA members have Cayennes in addition to their (usually) 911’s; some of the racers (I think they would qualify as “Porschephiles,” wouldn’t they?) have Cayennes as their equipment or tow vehicles.
Granted, there are plenty (likely a large majority) of Cayenne buyers who aren’t Porschephiles in any sense of the word. I don’t see how this is a bad thing, although I can see how a purist snob, who thinks that nothing that isn’t rear-engined and air-cooled should be called a Porsche, might.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Like a 911 got drunk and hooked up with an AMC Pacer.
It takes me back to my old ’46 and ’48 Ford sedans. Not much trunk space, but grundles of rear seat legroom. There truly is nothing new under the sun.
It’ll kick the Rapide’s ass.
If the money’s right, I’ll buy one.
I have a kid on the way, and right now I can tell you that this car, unlike the Rapide, will have usable rear seats. The back doors are big enough to be useful. The Rapide is no more usable as a true sedan than the Zagato four-door variants of the old “Supermarine” Aston V8 were.
As for how it looks… it looks better than any Japanese sedan in history with the sole exception of the 1990 Q45/Nissan President, which was loved by all and purchased by none.
In these carefully airbrushed pictures it almost looks attractive. Sort of reminds me of a Playboy centerfold; everything carefully laid out and all blemishes gone. But the sad reality is this just Porsche following trends and kicking their heritage to the curb. What’s next? A Porsche SUV? Oh, wait.
re: “Show me a rear-three-quarter shot.”
psarhjinian / January 23rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
here you go. http://www.porsche.com/usa/
watch the main photo ‘window’ and wait for the panamera image to arrive.
by the way – something seems a little off with the proportions of the car as shown in the photographs on ttac. the car appears longer and more streamlined on the porsche site and in the promotional photos i received from the company a couple of months ago.
Porsche should buy Saab if they are going to continue down this line of styling. The back end of the thing reminds of Saabs of yesteryear.
when will this website realize (and admit) that this car is merely a lowered, chopped Cayenne.
Same engines, same trannies, same everything. Its the same damned car.
Here’s what I don’t get: You’ve got Audi making arguably one of the best looking large sedans in the world (A8). Why didn’t Porsche just ape the best parts of that car,’s proportions and Porsche it up with styling cues, and call it a day?
Or maybe that’s what an S8 is? Or is an S8 really a 4 dour Lambo?
Wait, what? The Q45 was loved by all? What are you smoking? I own one, and I think it is dreary and ugly, like a 1989 Civic (no grille) crossed with an Oldsmobile (they have identical rear profiles). The advantage is that it goes quite nicely and can turn corners, so it’s a true Q-car – unassuming and dull outside, nice to drive and quick under the skin. I still think that motor was one of the best engines Nissan ever made, until cost cutting stepped in and they stopped mirror polishing the cranks, putting in VVT, and making the internals out of depleted uranium (or something with similar longevity). My father and I have plans to take that still-perfect engine out of the otherwise tired car to stuff into our Benz 250C coupe for a fun hotrod.
Where were we? Oh yeah. The Panamera is as ugly as (insert Clarkson simile here).
Michael Karesh did a nice styling review of the Chiseler Sebring recently.An eye opener that it’s cues came from that beautiful show car. Helped to make sense of why it’s so universally despised. [Though Road & Track in their 2009 Buyer’s Guide claims to like it’s looks….]
Perhaps he could do more of them if he’s not too busy with True Delta.
These are always my favorite articles. Motor Trend used to do them in the 50s called “Styling Slants” and also asked 3 designers to review each of the then new 1961 models in a New Car issue. Some used book store scores that are definitely keepers.
It would be nice if TTAC did more styling analysis articles.
And the Porsche? Looks like something Kia would build. Too short in the rear to carry off that roofline and hood. Pedestrian for a Porsche.But not weapons grade [Aztek] ugly.
I’m not a Porscheophile, so let’s look at this strictly in styling terms.
First, the fastback profile is not very attractive on car this size. There’s a reason most big cars stick to the three-box design. Dick Teague, longtime AMC styling chief, said, “There has never been a really successful big fastback” — and he would know, having penned the unfortunate Rambler Marlin. The problem, stylistically, is that the angle is too acute. If there were more rear overhang, or if the roof were lower, it would be more attractive. As it is, it makes the rear end look overweight.
The reverse scoop behind the front wheels creates a visual discontinuity between the front and rear halves of the car. It does exactly the opposite of what the fake scoop on the side of a Mustang does; it makes the the car look shorter than it actually is, and it creates the subtle impression that the front end is wider and wedgier than the rear. From the overhead view, the front track is not actually narrower than the rear, but in profile, it kind of looks like it does. It conspires to make the overall shape look chunky, rather than sleek.
There’s also the sense of recycling existing Porsche styling cues, regardless of whether they make any visual sense in context. As with the Cayenne, it means that from some angles, it seems like a 911 that’s suffering from some terrible thyroid problem.
Many aspects seem derivative of other cars, as well. The obtrusive shutline of the rear fender (coming from above the taillight down to the wheelhouse) looks very Bangle-like, like something off a Z4 or a 3-series. The sharp reverse curve of the C-pillar is straight off the Lexus IS. The crease in the front fender that runs back into the front doors actually suggests the Hyundai Elantra — not exactly a felicitous comparison.
It also looks like a packaging disaster. There’s a Coke-bottle shape to the fenders and body sides, a la Corvette C3, and there’s a LOT of tumblehome (the angle of the side windows relative to the vertical plane), both of which suggest a car that has less interior room than its overall dimensions would imply.
Overall, the Panamera looks like a car designed by committee. There are several conflicting agendas at work, and there is no angle from which its different themes form a coherent whole.
I think this car shows that while it’s relatively easy to make a relatively sweet looking “coupe” out of a sedan (e.g. mercedes and the new VW thing) it’s much harder to make a 4 door coupe look like anything other than crap. And i include the Mazda RX in that assessment. Imagine a 4 door 370 Z? So i’m left with why? as my only thought relative to this thing; if they want a sedan in their lineup then design one, don’t try to make the 911 into some sort of pseudo sedan.
It’s ugly and stupid.
EOL
It’s… meaningless.
And unnecessary.
“Porsche DNA” — does that automatically mean take a 911, splice it in half, add a rear passenger compartment, mix in half-assed cliches, and then call it a day? Wendelin Wiedeking is a genius (at financial schemes), but what made him think the 911 makes the perfect foundation for a four-door sedan?
I can’t draw to save my life and even so I could have easily, easily come up with something, if not better, then far MORE original.
Going back to the original premise, if you had to base the Panamera’s looks on an existing Porsche, why not the 944? Or, since there’s a bit of Audi inside the 944, take one Audi A8 and then slap on the Porsche cliches. Certainly the A8’s aluminum construction provides interesting options for Porsche’s engineers. Regardless, it couldn’t look any worse than this POS.
they could/should have taken rear end styling cues from the Boxster instead of giving it the profile of a stretched 911, since the Boxster is a bit more sedan like in it’s flatter rear end
thb i never expected the Panamera to be a good looking car, so i’m not disappointed in how it looks. it was to be expected.
So, who was it that did this market study that suggested there’s a big market for a 4 door, front engined Porsche? Ferrari perhaps?
What is a shame, is that the twenty year old stillborn Porsche 989 actually looks better than “The Hunchback of Zuffenhausen”.