Porsche CEO Puts Mission E Price At ~$85,000

2 months ago by Steven Loveday 61

Porsche Mission E Concept

Porsche Mission E Concept

If pricing proves true, we may have the first reasonable Tesla Model S competitor yet, aside from the Porsche’s lack of adult-sized rear seats.

As we previously reported, Porsche is surely moving forward with making its Mission E concept a reality, and apparently, it’s very much like the version we saw in Frankfurt in 2015 … or not?

Porsche CEO, Oliver Blume, shared on one recent occasion:

Porsche Mission E

Inside the Mission E concept

“It is very close to what you saw two years ago at Frankfurt.”

Although he also told CAR Magazine:

“It will be exciting but a bit different from the concept.”

We won’t know for sure what those comments mean until we get a look at the production version, which is slated for the 2020 model year. Unfortunately, we have to wait until 2019 for those pictures. Perhaps Porsche will rethink the tight rear seats of the car if they really intend to make this a Model S competitor. Wait … that would be a Panamera then, right? Anyhow, we do have some details surrounding the production vehicle and now a potential price.

The Mission E will come with a 350 kW charge rate and should allow for an 80-percent charge in as little as 15 minutes. This is 400 km (~250 miles) in a car that is supposed to tout a 300-mile range. Porsche aims for a 3.5 second zero-to-60 mph time and a top speed of 155 mph. Blume calls the new model a car to fill the void between the 911 and the Panamera, and he says it will be:

“priced like entry-level Panamera.”

For comparison, the base 911 Carrera will set you back $91,100, whereas the entry-level Panamera starts at $85,000.

Like all Porsche models, there will be at least two different main configurations, like an S and a GTS. Each will surely have different range and specs. So the above info referring to acceleration, top speed, and range may be linked to the more performance-oriented model, while the price is for the base? Although, it could be set up like a Tesla Model S 100D versus P100D situation. In this case, one car would perform better (following the above stats) and cost more, but the other would have the greater range and be priced lower. There’s also the solid potential for dual-motor all-wheel drive versus single-motor two-wheel drive. Sources say that Porsche is also still working on different body styles.

The least expensive Model S 75 is $69,500 (249 miles, 0-60 in 4.3s, 140mph top speed). The 75D (AWD) is $74,500 (259 miles, 0-60 in 4.2s, 140 mph). The 100D boasts 335 miles, 4.1 seconds, and 155 mph, but it will cost you a whopping $94,000. The $135,000 top-of-the-line P100D loses 20 miles of range, but it can undercut 2.5 seconds on a 0-60 sprint.

If Porsche is looking at $85,000 for a base model without the above-stated range and performance, then Tesla has the automaker beat by $15,500. However, if those stats are congruent with pricing for a car set to compete with the upper-level Tesla Model S vehicles, then Porsche may be on to something. It’s a waiting game at this point.

Porsche Mission E

Porsche Mission E Interior

Porsche Mission E

Source: The Truth About Cars

Tags: , , , , ,

61 responses to "Porsche CEO Puts Mission E Price At ~$85,000"

  1. Jack says:

    Can it drive from north to south along the Amazon cause it has self-driving capability hardware and access to supercharger infrastructure and get OTA Updates at the same time? And also will i get free update to self-driving capability hardware version 4.0 in 5 years when version 2.5 and 3.0 and 3.5 won’t be ready?

    1. Julio says:

      Who wants a self driving Porsche? It is like have a machine to eat barbecue for you.

      1. Nick says:

        Have it self drive to the track or commute for you, and you drive it on the weekend.

        1. Lawrence says:

          If you hate driving that much then forget the track. Stay at home.

          1. pjwood1 says:

            Maybe he doesn’t live for stop & go traffic?

            The track people I know cut it down to form follows function. If you get to a point where time and money allow; drive the track, sit back in the SUV as you tow home, and then let auto-steer and cruise do your commute. Porsche has nothing close to auto-steer, or AP, but that doesn’t stop enthusiasm for its evolving cruise control.

            1. Lawrence says:

              So based on your answer, it would appear that AP is not needed. If you are towing this car to the track … that would negate the need for AP.

    2. EVShopper says:

      you won’t have to worry about self driving for at least 10 years for regulations and laws and technology to finally come together.

      1. Nick says:

        The house is paving the way for self driving cars. They are trying to pass a law which says that you only need to show that a self driving car is as safe as a manual drive car.

        1. DJ says:

          Haha, so more than 10 years away then. Gotcha 😉

    3. Daniel says:

      I don’t think that Porsche will come at this price because it would be revolutionary,5 you would see 200 miles range VW golf for 20-25k. But your reply is so stupid, the only thing you could criticize would be its self driving capability that won’t be here for at least 2025. Lets bash Porsche for coming with revolutionary high performance EV because it is not a Tesla, lets continue to pollute the world

  2. SparkEV says:

    “350 kW charge rate and should allow for an 80-percent charge in as little as 15 minutes.”

    So are they going to come up with their own charging infrastructure or depend on existing CCS?

    If using CCS, there will be no way to charge 80% in 15 min even if every CCS convert to 350kW since you will be waiting for slow and free charging Leaf and i3 that take 30 minutes or an hour with second-plugin especially with bigger battery versions and Bolts.

    1. EVShopper says:

      They are using CCS, and working to build out charging infrastructure largely through ChargePoint. VW through, the dieselgate settlement is spending ~$2billion on EV infrastructure and education via “electrify America”. As well as working with other German brands like BMW, Mercedes, Audi to fund charging infrastructure in Europe.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Only if all EV makers stop selling CCS/Chademo cars today, having more chargers will alleviate clogging from existing free chargers. But the sad fact is that there will be far more free chargers clogging up than new charger installations.

        Free chargers always sit there long past lots of taper, which means even 350 kW chargers would often be used as 2 kW chargers. I wouldn’t want to pay $80K to sit and wait an hour for 2 kW EV.

        1. Nick says:

          Meh, just install a couple more. The chargers are not clogged in the PNW, and most are a single stall.

          1. Nick says:

            (we also have a fleet of NCTC card here.)

            Turns out most people charge at home, even if it’s free to charge at DCQC stations. Who knew? 😀

            A few locations which were busy now have more chargers installed.

          2. SparkEV says:

            Number of EV in PNW pale in comparison to CA. Typically, chargers are at supermarket and restaurant parking lots, and what I often see is free chargers plug in even if they already have 90% and go shopping. It’s free for them, and they waste no time since they’re gone shopping / eating. That means more free charging EV sales in PNW will result in more clogging.

        2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Who makes you think these “350 kW” chargers will cost the same to use as 50 kW ones?

          7x more power costs more both for equipment and demand charges by grid.

          As soon as it will go beyond demo installations stage towards commercial operation, it will get proper pricing and nobody will be sitting on them for 2 kW. It is luxury item and will be priced as such.

          1. SparkEV says:

            What makes you think these will cost more than 50kW units? eVgo billing by time, they make more money by having tapered EV sitting at 2 kW than this Porsche at 350 kW.

            But even if they charge more for 350 kW unit, it doesn’t matter to those getting free charging. They will still turn 350 kW unit into 2 kW units. Such is the power of free.

        3. unlucky says:

          Existing free charger today doesn’t have to be a free charger tomorrow. You can change pricing.

          You’re banging this drum too hard. Porsche is talking about 2020 and you’re saying infrastructure can’t work because it doesn’t work today.

          1. SparkEV says:

            I doubt they’ll change the pricing to accommodate few 350kW cars at the expense of 50 kW cars by 2020, or even by 2030.

            The sad reality is that EV sales will outpace charger installations, and Leaf 2.0 sucking so badly compared to Bolt and no answer to Bolt from i3, they will have to offer free charging for the foreseeable future, probably well into 2020. Tesla 3 will put even more pressure to offer free charging.

            As for banging the drum, I see it as public service. SparkEV already charges 60% in 15 minutes (ending at 80%), but that means nothing when there’s waiting at every DCFC. Many will be as “unlucky” as me when more free charging EVs are on the road in coming years.

            Waiting for heavily tapered free charging EV pisses me off with $75/mo SparkEV, I can’t imagine how awful I’d feel if I paid $85K for hour waiting, especially if I only needed 5 minutes to get home.

            1. John doe says:

              Depends on where you live.
              Where I live, most people charge at home, but there are still plenty of chargers.
              Also many parkingspaces are full of power outlets for block heaters in winter.
              With EVs, they charge for 8 hours at work, and sometime before they leave the car cools down, or warms up to the required temperature.
              Many chain stores have installed chargers for their customers. With or without payments.
              I charge at work, and at the Library. That is enough for me, for 99,9% of the time.
              During longer trips, I use a diesel car or van. It is handy to drive 800-1000km before I stop. If I’m up to it. As I get older, I tend to drive shorter distances before I stop. But the stops are still short.

            2. unlucky says:

              What does 350kW cars have to do with it?

              If you only meant 350kW chargers than all you care is the pricing on the 350kW chargers. Existing chargers aren’t 350kW chargers.

              Whether they will change the rules for non-350kW chargers is a different issue. If there’s really a massive malaise with the infrastructure because of too much free charging and there is actual demand for non-free charging then there is no reason to state that the pricing cannot change.

              I’m tired of your drum banging. To you people are going to just charge all day even if it wastes their time. You refuse to see that if chargers are numerous it means locals won’t sit on a charger at very low charge rates, they’ll come back another time when they are low again to get more. Because you have a low range car you can’t see that when you have range you don’t have to slowly top off. If you’re already at 190 miles (80% range for a Bolt) and there are enough chargers around you’ll go away and go to another charge later when you are low again.

              And people who charge at home are less likely to need to charge on the go at all if they have long-range cars.

              Longer range cars can easily lead to less overall charger utilization but you can’t see it because you’re too busy with your drum.

              1. SparkEV says:

                If you’re tired of my drum banging, imagine how tired I am of waiting for Bolts at >70% and tapered to 25 kW and hour left to go. As mentioned, EVERY DCFC waiting is for Bolt being the slowest DCFC charging EV in history; they are almost always above 70%.

                Now if you’re talking about not using DCFC at all, I can do that too, since my commute and city driving do not require DCFC. My long trips require at least one DCFC even with Bolt, and that means waiting. For $85K, or even $40K, waiting an hour at every DCFC is unacceptable to me, probably for many others as well. Indeed, charging time (or waiting time in this case) is a huge reason why EV adoption is hovering around 1%. The more EVs are sold, the worse clogging will be.

                Clogging is primarily due to free chargers, and you can be sure that there will be lot more free chargers coming, either via ride sharing or companies giving perks to their employees. If you think there will be more chargers to compensate, think again. Even just few dozen free charging EV will hopeless clog up the whole city as Bolt has shown.

  3. L'amata says:

    I would Not compare this to a Tesla, But then they’re comparing Bolts to model3, So I guess anything goes???:)(*&^%$!@#$%???????.
    Porsche is a 4dr. “sports car” without utility . Tesla is a 4dr. ‘Sedan” with loads of room , Built on a true EV Platform.

    1. EVShopper says:

      Mission E is a built on purpose built EV platform.

      1. unlucky says:

        Sort of. Like how the Bolt is sort of. And the LEAF is sort of. Heck, Porsche’s top selling car is sort of on a Porsche platform, it really shares a platform with a VW and an Audi.

    2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      And some Hyundai Ioniq beats Tesla hands down by utility, practicality and cost of ownership if you are looking for such features. Its interior size is similar to Model S/X, you can choose whatever drivetrain you want and service in every Hyundai shop around the corner.

      You may be look for something more if you want to spend $70k-$150k on a quickly depreciating asset like car. It is obvious that Mission E is in higher league than Model S just by glancing at it.

      1. L'amata says:

        That’s fine & dandy if you don’t have a problem being seen in one of those cars.

        1. DJ says:

          Not everyone feels the need to make up for their insecurity by driving around in a “fancy” car.

          It must be tiring thinking about what other people think of you all the friggin time.

          I mean seriously, I feel sorry for people that genuinely feel this way.

  4. BillT says:

    The base price is a little lower than I expected but Porsche has turned optioning up a car to 175%+ of base price into an art form.
    I agree that the lack of a real back seat will limit its appeal. All that being said the more EVs the merrier.

    1. georgeS says:

      “The base price is a little lower than I expected”

      agreed. I expected 100K$ plus for this Mission e.

  5. Vexar says:

    If I recall, VW Group is banking on doubling the pack voltage to get greater than double the charging speed. How are they doubling the cooling, though? Or are they fine with cooking the battery because that’s a Porsche-priced replacement part? I think Tesla failed with the battery swap by putting it in California first. They should have put it in Germany along their ever-loving Autobahn, a road that turns every German accountant, union worker, and disc jockey into a race car driver, after a long day or night’s work, trying to get home.

  6. pjwood1 says:

    Porsche isn’t making an electric car. Your speculation is amusing. Thanks, for reminding what is available today. Lots of German parts in what you can go out and buy, right now.

  7. bogdan says:

    BEV priced as its conventional counterpart?
    They are trying to fool us again.
    Vapor ware, what else?

  8. WARREN says:

    Based on the workmanship and interior quality, I would expect the Porsche to cost more. Top line Panamera Turbo S sedans can top $200k.

    1. pjwood1 says:

      It’s not like there’s a pile of materials over here, and skilled labor over there, that get a Porsche to 200k. If Porsche were willing to spend on materials, they’d buy batteries.

      I’d much rather 80-90KWh and a marginally worse interior. Again, “form follows function”. What good is a V8, non-track, Panamera, whose legs never stretch and fumbles lethargic around town?

  9. WARREN says:

    Based on the workmanship and interior quality, I would expect the Porsche to cost more. Top line Panamera Turbo S sedans can top $200k.

  10. Thiago says:

    COmparing 2017 tesla with a non-functional “prototype” to be launch in 2020? In 2020 tesla will have better prices and specs than today. Mission E will have specs similar to the future top line of model 3 (performance dual motor etc).

  11. wavelet says:

    Price comparisons with Tesla at this point, 2 years before the car starts selling are pointless — we have no idea what Tesla prices will be like then (for both cars, a lot of the manufacturer’s cost depends on the battery, esp. rate of change of battery prices), let alone what the basic trim levels will include.

    1. wavelet says:

      For that matter, the article’s headline is misleading… The CEO _didn’t_ say $85K. He said “priced [presumably starting from] like entry-level Panamera.” We don’t know what the Panamera will cost 2 years from now either… Maybe the basic Mission (which won’t be the official model name, IIUC) won’t include AWD, for example.

      1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        Basic Panamera will cost about the same $85k as it costs today and last year, and year before 😉 Why should it cost more?

        Yes, Mission E will look and perform better than Model S. Sorry to break somebody’s dreams about magic Teslarium Kingdom, but Porsche is old company and you can have perfectly good idea how a car scheduled for production will perform and what it will cost when it will reach customers. They don’t need to spill any alien dreadnought BS to learn how to scale up mass production line and recruit new suppliers.

  12. georgeS says:

    Tesla charges at a C rate of around 1.

    This Porsche charges at a C rate of 4.

    I want to know what secret sauce they have in the battery department.

    1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

      More like 3 C average until 80% SOC. Better cooling system and somewhat heavier more expensive batteries formulated for more power can do the trick.

      Higher C rate is just matter of trade-off between it and density/cost. As higher cost is acceptable, you can do it. Even plain Ioniq Electric with 28 kWh LiPo charges at 60-70 kW, above 2C.

      1. georgeS says:

        “somewhat heavier more expensive batteries formulated for more power can do the trick.”

        Higher C rate is just matter of trade-off between it and density/cost. As higher cost is acceptable, you can do it. Even plain Ioniq Electric with 28 kWh LiPo charges at 60-70 kW, above 2C.”

        ZZZZZZZ,

        I agree with that. It’s a trade off between higher energy density and C rate.

        My theory is that is why they have what seems to be a somewhat roomier back seat with suicide doors. More floor space opened up more room for a bigger pack which is what they will need with less energy dense batteries. Also they only have 250 miles US range.

        Perhaps they will also go with a nano anode or something to get charge C rate up. Seems like the LTO batteries had nono tech anodes.

        Interesting trade offs IMO. A little less range but with double or triple the charging speed.

      2. pjwood1 says:

        The faster C-rate gets owners on their way sooner, but the point I think is to also enable stronger, more efficient, regeneration. This was part of the “~80%” recovery efficiency discussed about Mission E, this week.

        From a performance perspective, if you can get more back, you can last longer on the track. Accepting higher watts also brings heat issues. As much as I’ve come to culturally dislike the company, I’m confident they are working to manage high C-rates, regen and consequently **cooling**.

        Remembering track driving is sometimes taught as an all-throttle, all-brake, exercise, I can identify how a performance EV would need to handle 100+KW (or much higher) constantly coming, or going. In a Tesla, the motors heat up first, then the battery, and that can be after 5 minutes, assuming you’ve already set the regen to ‘Low’. Like we might discuss liquid-cooling versus no liquid-cooling (LEAF?), the difference in the cooling system Porsche is developing will probably put it in another league. Nobody else (maybe Nio/Rimac?) has had a compelling need to try?

        If the batteries are more dense, however, there would be more heat to dissipate? I don’t know how they are going to do it, but hope it gets the cars to last at least ~20 minutes, before power drops.

        1. georgeS says:

          pjwood,

          “The faster C-rate gets owners on their way sooner, but the point I think is to also enable stronger, more efficient, regeneration. This was part of the “~80%” recovery efficiency discussed about Mission E, this week.”

          I agree. Higher C rate should increase regen if you are really hitting the brakes then, if you don’t have the high C rate, it might get chopped off if the charging C rate is exceeded.

          Do you want more range or faster charging speeds????????????

          1. Pjwood1 says:

            You want a faster C rate, if it allows accessing the boatload of kinetic energy wasted in a performance setting. Range (which means more weight) only increases the KW coming and going.

            Example, MT recently remarked the P100D was the first car whose 0-60-0 time took the same on the way up as it brakes back down. That’s 400-500KW, on both sides, when regeneration caps at ~60KW. Tesla could offer more, but it gets at what you do, I think, which is how violent this level of braking is and how priorities get reversed for this environmentioned.

            More effectively using kinetic energy will be a great place to see Formula E advance (150KW limit, albeit a lighter car).

  13. vvk says:

    Not gonna happen. But it is so easy to spew this stuff out when the car is still two years away from being on the market. Also, Tesla will not be staning still all this time.

  14. unlucky says:

    We don’t really have a true competitor for the Model S if this doesn’t come out until mid-2019 at the earliest. It’s 2017 right now, not 2019.

    You can’t compare what exists today to what isn’t available yet. Especially in a fast-moving business like EVs.

  15. dinhh68 says:

    another Vapor_2012_Tesla_Model_S_Ware killer. YAWN

  16. huhu says:

    Tesla Roadster 2 will have significantly better specs and of course better intelligence and charging network, but presumably at a higher price.

    1. Daniel says:

      Yeah, I am sure you got it from some friends friends who heard it from Musk I presume.

  17. tuning in says:

    I own two Tesla model S and will never achieve the fanboy fanaticism of you all.

    1. Daniel says:

      That’s the best reply of the day. I can’t understand how people can be that obtuse. So a performance car manufacturer is coming with am electric car and all those fanboys can come with insult. So let all the manufacturers continue with ICE polluting car once no one brings some competition to Tesla. They would prefer the world burns than someone someday producing a better or more affordable car than Tesla.

      1. tuning in says:

        As a consumer, I hope that there are companies creating vehicles that surpass Tesla. Competition is a good thing because it creates better products at better prices. An of course more options for the buyer as well.

        I would trade in the Model S in a heartbeat if there were a better car, because I want the best car for my money.

        Maybe a lot of these fanboys have never owned a Tesla. Having cars inoperable for a month each time, waiting for service tends to give perspective that it’s a good car but it’s not worth the undying loyalty that I’ve seen here.

  18. Don Zenga says:

    Looks like Mission E is only a 4 seater and you cannot compare this to Model S which is a 7 seater and why pay an extra $10 K than Model S.

    Model S is an AWD vehicle as well.
    No way, Model S is still the champion.

    1. Nix says:

      Tesla calls it 5+2.

  19. Nix says:

    Completely worth the price.

    1. bogdan says:

      It’s a scam, don’t believe the news!

  20. Jason says:

    In Australia, Panamera has an entry price listed at AUD$230k. High spec Tesla Model X 100D has list price AUD$160k. Something is wrong in Australia of you Americans are saying the entry price for Panamera is US$85k, we are certainly getting ripped off and this makes Tesla look so much more attractive in comparison.
    If Tesla can improve their luxury materials and feel they will really put these other models into a coffin.
    There is no way I believe Porsche will delivery their cutting edge Mission E for US$85k.

Leave a Reply