Production Porsche Mission E Priced Around $85,000 in 2019; 80-percent Charge Takes 15 Minutes

Timothy Cain
by Timothy Cain
production porsche mission e priced around 85 000 in 2019 80 percent charge takes

“It is very close to what you saw two years ago at Frankfurt,” Porsche CEO Oliver Blume says of the forthcoming production version of 2015’s stunning Mission E Concept.

“It will be exciting but a bit different from the concept,” Blume told CAR Magazine at the Frankfurt Motor Show.

That’s for beholders to gauge once the production version of the Mission E is pictured in 2019, when the model arrives exclusively with electric powertrains. Oliver Blume did, however, make clearer commitments relative to the Mission E that will delight Porschephiles and — perhaps — convert Tesla fans.

Right from launch, the Porsche Mission E — likely a 2020 model year vehicle — will be marketed with a 350 kW charge rate that “will be enough for a 400-kilometer range on an 80 percent charge,” Blume says. That’s 250 miles of range from a 15-minute charge. All of this in a car that Porsche claims accelerates from rest to 60 miles per hour in 3.5 seconds and tops 155 mph, a car Porsche couldn’t have developed “so quickly without the 919” — the automaker’s Le Mans-winning hybrid endurance racer.

Porsche’s CEO says the company is in the final engineering phases for the Mission E, a car the company sees as filling the void in between the Panamera and 911. At least to start, the production Mission E — which Porsche calls a “fascinating sports car” — will be positioned alongside its sports car and sedan bookends. It will, says Porsche, be “priced like entry-level Panamera.”

Including delivery, Porsche USA’s entry-level Panamera starts at $86,050. The basic Porsche 911 Carrera is a $92,150 car.

Porsche says the Mission E’s fully charged range will be 300 miles, but the company is considering different power outputs — expect S and GTS models, for example — which will presumably alter the range. The dual-motor format promises all-wheel drive. Different bodystyles are also under consideration.

Presently, the least costly Tesla Model S is the $69,500 rear-wheel drive 75 with 249 miles of range and a 4.3-second 0-60 time. Tesla also markets the $74,500 75D (with slightly more range and all-wheel drive), the $94,000 100D (335-mile range, 0-60 in 4.1), and the $135,000 P100D, which drops range by 20 miles but cuts the 0-60 time to a claimed 2.5 seconds.

At launch, however, faithfulness to 2015’s concept could end up as just as strong a selling point as the Porsche badge or Model S-baiting acceleration figures. Few and far between are cars with enough drama to match the Mission E’s eye-catching design.

[Images: Porsche]

Timothy Cain is a contributing analyst at The Truth About Cars and and the founder and former editor of Follow on Twitter @timcaincars and Instagram.

Join the conversation
2 of 34 comments
  • Master Baiter Master Baiter on Sep 13, 2017

    If that car ends up selling for $85K, I'll eat my hat. . .

  • Tekdemon Tekdemon on Sep 15, 2017

    Well I am impressed with that charge rate, not sure who's supplying the battery cells for Porsche but if they can really charge that quickly it's going to be impressive. Of course, being able to charge that quickly is mostly helpful if there's really that many high speed charging stations. So that's the part they're really going to have to work on-make sure that high speed CCS chargers get installed along important routes like Tesla's done. I do wonder what Tesla is going to do in response though, they've hinted at a next gen charge rate that would exceed this but I don't think it'll be out by 2019.

  • Nrd515 I bought an '88 S10 Blazer with the 4.3. We had it 4 years and put just about 48K on it with a bunch of trips to Nebraska and S. Dakota to see relatives. It had a couple of minor issues when new, a piece of trim fell off the first day, and it had a seriously big oil leak soon after we got it. The amazinly tiny starter failed at about 40K, it was fixed under some sort of secret warranty and we got a new Silverado as a loaner. Other than that, and a couple of tires that blew when I ran over some junk on the road, it was a rock. I hated the dash instrumentation, and being built like a gorilla, it was about an inch and a half too narrow for my giant shoulders, but it drove fine, and was my second most trouble free vehicle ever, only beaten by my '82 K5 Blazer, which had zero issues for nearly 50K miles. We sold the S10 to a friend, who had it over 20 years and over 400,000 miles on the original short block! It had a couple of transmissions, a couple of valve jobs, a rear end rebuild at 300K, was stolen and vandalized twice, cut open like a tin can when a diabetic truck driver passed out(We were all impressed at the lack of rust inside the rear quarters at almost 10 years old, and it just went on and on. Ziebart did a good job on that Blazer. All three of his sons learned to drive in it, and it was only sent to the boneyard when the area above the windshield had rusted to the point it was like taking a shower when it rained. He now has a Jeep that he's put a ton of money into. He says he misses the S10's reliablity a lot these days, the Jeep is in the shop a lot.
  • Jeff S Most densely populated areas have emission testing and removing catalytic converters and altering pollution devices will cause your vehicle to fail emission testing which could effect renewing license plates. In less populated areas where emission testing is not done there would probably not be any legal consequences and the converter could either be removed or gutted both without having to buy specific parts for bypassing emissions. Tampering with emission systems would make it harder to resell a vehicle but if you plan on keeping the vehicle and literally running it till the wheels fall off there is not much that can be done if there is no emission testing. I did have a cat removed on a car long before mandatory emission testing and it did get better mpgs and it ran better. Also had a cat gutted on my S-10 which was close to 20 years old which increased performance and efficiency but that was in a state that did not require emission testing just that reformulated gas be sold during the Summer months. I would probably not do it again because after market converters are not that expensive on older S-10s compared to many of the newer vehicles. On newer vehicles it can effect other systems that are related to the operating and the running of the vehicle. A little harder to defeat pollution devices on newer vehicles with all the systems run by microprocessors but if someone wants to do it they can. This law could be addressing the modified diesels that are made into coal rollers just as much as the gasoline powered vehicles with cats. You probably will still be able to buy equipment that would modify the performance of a vehicles as long as the emission equipment is not altered.
  • ToolGuy I wonder if Vin Diesel requires DEF.(Does he have issues with Sulfur in concentrations above 15ppm?)
  • ToolGuy Presented for discussion:
  • Kevin Ford can do what it's always done. Offer buyouts to retirement age employees, and transfers to operating facilities to those who aren't retirement age. Plus, the transition to electric isn't going to be a finger snap one time event. It's going to occur over a few model years. What's a more interesting question is: Where will today's youth find jobs in the auto industry given the lower employment levels?