Macan 2.0 T vs Macan S

All Porsche Macan Related Discussion
Col Lamb
Posts: 9323
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:38 pm
Location: Lancashire

Post by Col Lamb »

adrian991 wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:16 am Included with my receipt for my 2019 Macan 2.0T was the Certificate of Conformance that applies specifically to my car, it's a 4 page document written in German. This shows the Correlated NEDC emission and consumption figures for Urban, Extra Urban and Combined (these are the same values that are shown on the Porsche web site) but it also shows the data that has been measured by the WLTP emissions test which is much more comprehensive. VED rates will continue to be based on the Correlated NEDC values but the government has proposed that they will change from April 2020 to use the full WLTP data for CO2 emissions. At the moment the 2.0T with 185g/km has a first year rate of £830 (rises to £855 April 2019) and for the 3.0S it is £1240 (rises to £1280 from April 2019).

From 6th April 2020, if the government gets it's proposal through then there could be a significant increase in first year VED rates for all cars (not just Porsche) following the changeover to using WLTP to determine the first year VED rates. The industry predicts a 10% to 20% increase in the CO2 emissions data that will be used for BIK, VED, and employers NI contributions as a result of the switch. However as you can read on the web site links below there is a move to ensure that this "increase" in emissions should not impact financially on consumers. However, if the government sees an opportunity to extract more tax by moving cars up into higher emissions bands will they resist the temptation?

As the WLTP web site mentions, in reality the emissions and consumption of the cars has not changed, it's just the new measurement procedure gives a more realistic result of what the actual values are compared to what NEDC measured.

For my Macan 2.0T the CoC shows both the NEDC and the WLTP measurements
NEDC
Urban - 218 g/km - 9.5 l/100km - 29.7 mpg
Extra Urban - 166 g/km - 7.3 l/100km - 38.7 mpg
Combined - 185 g/km - 8.1 l/100km - 34.9 mpg - This is the figure used to determine the first year VED rate of £830

WLTP is measured at 5 values
Low - 295 g/km - 13.0 l/100 km - 21.7 mpg
Middle - 222 g/km - 9.8 l/100 km - 28.8 mpg
High - 198 g/km - 8.7 l/100km - 32.5 mpg
Extra High - 249 g/km - 11 l/100km - 25.7 mpg
Combined - 233 g/km - 10.3 l/100km - 27.4 mpg - This is the figure that would be used to calculate VED from 6th April 2020

I have driven my car just over 400 miles since delivery, it's obviously not run in and it is on winter tyres but so far it's showing an overall average of 28.2 mpg on the trip meter which is consistent with the WLTP combined figure.

If you want to know more have a look here http://wltpfacts.eu/from-nedc-to-wltp-change/ and here https://www.vehicle-certification-agenc ... b/wltp.asp

From January 2019 the WLTP figures will be available through a link on the VCA web sites so it will be interesting to see how the 3.0S compares, my guess is that it will be worse than the 2.0T in proportion to the NEDC figures for the combined figure.
Very generally.

You should find that MPG will improve gradually unitl c10k miles when it will stabilise unless of course you have developed a heavy right foot.

The MFD does tend to show about 10% better MPG than actual so please be aware that this is probably the case with your motor.

Since its introduction the 2.0T has not achieved the MPG than many buyers have expected (mid 30s) and they have commented on here accordingly. It is not surprizing as moving a 2 tonne SUV is a lot to ask for any lowish powered engine that was the beauty of the SD, plenty of torque got the Macan moving very easily up to NSLs.
Col
Macan Turbo
Air, 20” wheels, ACC, Pano, SurCam, 14w, LEDs, PS+, Int Light Pack, Heated seats and Steering, spare wheel, SC, Privacy glass, PDK gear, SD mirrors, Met Black, rear airbags

johnd
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:23 pm

Post by johnd »

adrian991 wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:16 am I have driven my car just over 400 miles since delivery, it's obviously not run in and it is on winter tyres but so far it's showing an overall average of 28.2 mpg on the trip meter which is consistent with the WLTP combined figure.

Which is probably a true 25-26mpg if you were to monitor it carefully eg via Fuelly. Most people find the car's built-in calculations to be 2-3mpg too optimistic.
Macan SD (Rhodium) www.porsche-code.com/PH4H6XU3 June 2016

Real mpg at Fuelly
adrian991
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:18 pm

Post by adrian991 »

johnd wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:13 am
adrian991 wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:16 am I have driven my car just over 400 miles since delivery, it's obviously not run in and it is on winter tyres but so far it's showing an overall average of 28.2 mpg on the trip meter which is consistent with the WLTP combined figure.

Which is probably a true 25-26mpg if you were to monitor it carefully eg via Fuelly. Most people find the car's built-in calculations to be 2-3mpg too optimistic.
I already have an iPhone App which records fuel put in and distance travelled, as an example my GTS had done 22k miles and the overall average calculated by the App over that distance was 24.3 mpg, the average on the trip computer for the last 5k miles (mainly on the summer tyres with no reset) was 23.5mpg so it was actually pessimistic.

My new Macan, was full on delivery but I topped it up after 70 miles and after the first refuel (same fuel station) and a further 295 miles the App's calculated mpg is 27.2 vs a displayed value of 28.2 for the now total of 489. Despite what some have experienced of the previous 2L, I do believe that 30 mpg on summer tyres is achievable without having to try too hard but we shall see.

I have to admit I did have my doubts about the new Macan and have spent the last 7 days driving it every day to finally decide if it was the right choice as there was an option to change to an S (April delivery) but 489 miles later I am very pleased with it and it suits the change of use to a mix of shorter (10 to 30 mile) journeys with the occasional 60 to 100 mile trip.

As for the drive itself, I think it's rather good and perfectly fast enough for normal road driving. I would describe it as quick but not rapid like a GTS or super rapid like a Turbo but if I want a higher level of performance I have a 911 GTS to use and when the Sun comes out a Boxster. :D

Here by the way is something that's changed with the new model.
The Macan GTS would always begin from a cold start with something high displayed like 32mpg and gradually this would come down so it was possible to do a short 10 mile journey and the trip computer would say the car had done 27 mpg which was complete nonsense. The new Macan's single trip computer works in reverse in that from a cold start it displays a low number, in my case 14 mpg, and this improves as the car is driven further so I only look at the overall trip data.
User avatar
Miopyk
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 2:55 pm
Location: A field somewhere west of London

Post by Miopyk »

Popped into Reading OPC this afternoon to pick something up and someone was picking up a new 2.0L Macan in Miami Blue. And I remembered to take a pic of the Cayman in Maritime Blue. It's been in there a while but I really like it. The Macan is in the background

IMG_2349.jpeg

Current
  • Guards Red 981 Cayman
    GT Silver 718 Boxster 25
nozydog
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:07 am

Post by nozydog »

Col Lamb wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:13 am
adrian991 wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:16 am
You should find that MPG will improve gradually unitl c10k miles when it will stabilise unless of course you have developed a heavy right foot.

The MFD does tend to show about 10% better MPG than actual so please be aware that this is probably the case with your motor.

Since its introduction the 2.0T has not achieved the MPG than many buyers have expected (mid 30s) and they have commented on here accordingly. It is not surprizing as moving a 2 tonne SUV is a lot to ask for any lowish powered engine that was the beauty of the SD, plenty of torque got the Macan moving very easily up to NSLs.
Anyone who hasn't developed a heavy right foot by 10k miles really shouldn't be driving a Porsche! :lol:

I believe the 2.0L weighs in at a mere 1795 kg!!
adrian991
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:18 pm

Post by adrian991 »

nozydog wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:04 pm
Col Lamb wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:13 am
adrian991 wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:16 am
You should find that MPG will improve gradually unitl c10k miles when it will stabilise unless of course you have developed a heavy right foot.

The MFD does tend to show about 10% better MPG than actual so please be aware that this is probably the case with your motor.

Since its introduction the 2.0T has not achieved the MPG than many buyers have expected (mid 30s) and they have commented on here accordingly. It is not surprizing as moving a 2 tonne SUV is a lot to ask for any lowish powered engine that was the beauty of the SD, plenty of torque got the Macan moving very easily up to NSLs.
Anyone who hasn't developed a heavy right foot by 10k miles really shouldn't be driving a Porsche! :lol:

I believe the 2.0L weighs in at a mere 1795 kg!!

1770kg actually!

Is this heavy enough for you? :lol:
My 991.2 C4 GTS somewhere on an unrestricted section of the Autobahn A7 in October 2017 = in a 5 car Porsche 911 convoy :lol:

IMG_2347.jpg

That trip was 2585 miles, the continuous average speed was 54 mph, the average fuel consumption was 27.8 mpg and believe it or not all country speed limits (UK, Germany, Austria and France) were adhered to)
Col Lamb
Posts: 9323
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:38 pm
Location: Lancashire

Post by Col Lamb »

nozydog wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:04 pm
Col Lamb wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:13 am
adrian991 wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 12:16 am
You should find that MPG will improve gradually unitl c10k miles when it will stabilise unless of course you have developed a heavy right foot.

The MFD does tend to show about 10% better MPG than actual so please be aware that this is probably the case with your motor.

Since its introduction the 2.0T has not achieved the MPG than many buyers have expected (mid 30s) and they have commented on here accordingly. It is not surprizing as moving a 2 tonne SUV is a lot to ask for any lowish powered engine that was the beauty of the SD, plenty of torque got the Macan moving very easily up to NSLs.
Anyone who hasn't developed a heavy right foot by 10k miles really shouldn't be driving a Porsche! :lol:

I believe the 2.0L weighs in at a mere 1795 kg!!
If you are going to screw around with a persons post please make sure you quote them correctly.

What you edited is a load of b4lloks
Col
Macan Turbo
Air, 20” wheels, ACC, Pano, SurCam, 14w, LEDs, PS+, Int Light Pack, Heated seats and Steering, spare wheel, SC, Privacy glass, PDK gear, SD mirrors, Met Black, rear airbags
adrian991
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:18 pm

Post by adrian991 »

Col Lamb wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:44 pm
nozydog wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:04 pm
Col Lamb wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:13 am

Anyone who hasn't developed a heavy right foot by 10k miles really shouldn't be driving a Porsche! :lol:

I believe the 2.0L weighs in at a mere 1795 kg!!
If you are going to screw around with a persons post please make sure you quote them correctly.

What you edited is a load of b4lloks
Well I hope that last bit about b4llocks wasn’t directed at me. I think it’s quite easy to make some errors when quoting a reply and I think that’s what happened to Col Lamb as somehow what he wrote in reply to mine now looks like I wrote it which I didn’t.

Anyway it’s all a load of sphericals isn’t it? 8-)
User avatar
Pivot
Posts: 1535
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:41 pm

Post by Pivot »


adrian991 wrote: ... That trip was 2585 miles, the continuous average speed was 54 mph, the average fuel consumption was 27.8 mpg and believe it or not all country speed limits (UK, Germany, Austria and France) were adhered to)
I love your graphical trip stats!
Current: 911 Carrera T - PPM9RU51
On order: 911 Targa 4S - PPDV8NY4
nozydog
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:07 am

Post by nozydog »

Col Lamb wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:44 pm
nozydog wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:04 pm
Col Lamb wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:13 am

Anyone who hasn't developed a heavy right foot by 10k miles really shouldn't be driving a Porsche! :lol:

I believe the 2.0L weighs in at a mere 1795 kg!!
If you are going to screw around with a persons post please make sure you quote them correctly.

What you edited is a load of b4lloks
Well you’re a charmer aren’t you... I included the parts of your post that I wished to comment on. It certainly wasn’t a question of me taking your comments out of context to justify my reply... take a frigging chill pill man... :roll:
Post Reply

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post