Macan 2.0 T vs Macan S

[Tom 2000]

I havnt driven a 2.0T Macan and really wanted a 3 litre car. Having driven a Golf R for last couple of years I know the 2 litre VW engine is superb and the R is no light weight. I can imagine that when pushed the Macan will suit a lot of tastes.

[Hawkeye]

I walked past a very nice looking Macan parked up in Soho this evening. Only when I got to the back and saw the standard oblong exhausts did I even know it was actually the 2.0. Looked more than fine to me. Each to their own I say on the proviso you’ve had the opportunity to experience the various variants to properly compare and contrast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MacanArif]

two points:

1. I don't care about residual values as plan to keep the car quite a long time and the odd few grand makes no difference to me

2. All this talk of performance being poor is really funny as the 2.0T Macan is quicker to 60mph and quicker in the all important 50-70mph benchmark than a 3.0 Diesel Cayenne. I don't hear too many of the tens of thousands of Cayenne owners lament the poor performance of that particular model

The sky is the limit with performance as the 3.0S petrol will feel sluggish compared to the Turbo PP and so on. In 9 times out of 10, our 2.0T Macan will beat my manual 300bhp Golf to 60

A 2.0 Macan will beat a 300bhp Golf R to 60 - really???

I have a Golf R and have to disagree. I have had a 2.0 Macan for a whole day and it certainly wasn't quick!

[Retired]

t

A 2.0 Macan will beat a 300bhp Golf R to 60 - really???

I have a Golf R and have to disagree. I have had a 2.0 Macan for a whole day and it certainly wasn't quick!

Of course it won't. Golf R to 100kph sub 5 secs. Macan 2.0 6.7 secs. A huge difference.

Have to say I struggle to see the point of the 2.0. in UK. Had one for a day while my Turbo was being serviced. Over my usual routes it delivered much the same mpg as my Turbo and had to be worked to deliver performance. Petrol S quicker, nicer engine, will use only slightly more fuel and will have better residuals.

2.0 exists, I suspect, because some markets impose punishing tax rates on higher capacity engines and because it exists Porsche sell it in other markets.

[Bigboyrolo]

2.0 exists, I suspect, because some markets impose punishing tax rates on higher capacity engines and because it exists Porsche sell it in other markets.

Thats why Jaguar produced 2.0 petrol XF, before the Ingenium engines were developed, just for the Far East market.

[gtipirelli]

two points:

1. I don't care about residual values as plan to keep the car quite a long time and the odd few grand makes no difference to me

2. All this talk of performance being poor is really funny as the 2.0T Macan is quicker to 60mph and quicker in the all important 50-70mph benchmark than a 3.0 Diesel Cayenne. I don't hear too many of the tens of thousands of Cayenne owners lament the poor performance of that particular model

The sky is the limit with performance as the 3.0S petrol will feel sluggish compared to the Turbo PP and so on. In 9 times out of 10, our 2.0T Macan will beat my manual 300bhp Golf to 60

A 2.0 Macan will beat a 300bhp Golf R to 60 - really???

I have a Golf R and have to disagree. I have had a 2.0 Macan for a whole day and it certainly wasn't quick!

You misread my post, my golf is a manual as a lot of cars are and the Macan jumps to 60 in just over 6.5 seconds EVERY time. I struggle to match it in the golf unless I get every gear change perfect which is difficult in the real world

[Col Lamb]

The 2.0 litre with a miserly 250 bhp is way down on power compared to the lighter Golf R.

The 2.0 from 50-70 on the road will only just keep pace with a Passatt blue motion, I know I have floored it against one. Same thing against a Beamer 120D at a traffic lights GP, it barely accelerated faster than the Beamer.

For goodness sake its a Porsche its performance should not match its competition it should obliterate them.

[johnd]

You misread my post, my golf is a manual as a lot of cars are and the Macan jumps to 60 in just over 6.5 seconds EVERY time. I struggle to match it in the golf unless I get every gear change perfect which is difficult in the real world

That's how I read the original post but it does rather nullify any comparison - what you're really commenting on is DSG/PDK vs manual. So there's no suggestion implied that a DSG Golf R wouldn't beat the Macan 2.0 every time in eg 0-60 times, assuming a like-for-like comparison, eg both in Sport mode.

[Paul]

I’m thinking of starting a petition to get this disgraceful apology of a car permanently banned from production!
It clearly has no place on our roads and all existing 2.0 T models should be crushed!

[LLL]

A basic Audi is not the only horrible car.

Take a 2.0 or an S and add nothing or just bling and its horrible to drive.

Uncomfortable seats, hard ride, heavy to park, terrible rear view and lights that hardly illuminate any road, yep nobody should consider buying a poorly specced Macan.

In essence, forum advice are often really rather exaggerated and this is a good example.

I've owned a Macan Turbo with all the bells and whistles and performance options. I've also driven 2.0 Macan bare bones. YES, there is off course a difference, but the basic seats, coil suspension with big wheels are all pretty okay and it's still a great car. It gives a good feeling also to save a bit of money and for residual outside of enthusiast forums there are hardly any must have options. The price is in the end what counts.

If you want a really smooth ride with a responsive drivetrain and low mpg you should start looking into EVs instead