Macan SD - hits and misses

All Porsche Macan Related Discussion
johnd
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:23 pm

Post by johnd »

GMAN75 wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 11:34 am John, have you looked at the GLA 45 or X2 M?? Can't get more compact than those in the "SUV" stakes. Both quick, decent room and will do your mpg without the ridiculous EV element.
Well, the GLA45 has what is possibly THE worst example of iPad perched on top of the dash so for me it's immediately out of contention on that score I'm afraid. (It doesn't seem to review well more generally either.) Lots of respect for the BMW engines, but I wouldn't ever want to own one - weird over-fussy styling and too many other drawbacks.

But thanks for the comments anyway, unless something unexpected comes out of the woodwork in the next month or two I'm pretty much persuaded now by the various comments to go down the I-Pace route - I suspect that little else in its class will offer the same sort of driving experience (and also meet my other criteria).
Macan SD (Rhodium) www.porsche-code.com/PH4H6XU3 June 2016

Real mpg at Fuelly

davetronic
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 11:53 am

Post by davetronic »

JohnD - I could have written almost the same first post! Except, my wife has had her new Q3 SLine Quattro a year and loves it. I actually think it looks ok and is ok to drive, but the media/comms/satnav is absolutely dreadful and a disgrace! I have changed my & my wife’s cars every 2 years for the last 40 years. BUT my Maserati Ghibli is now 4 years old and I can’t find anything to replace it. I want a premium quality, reasonably quicknot too big SUV type car, my days of low 911, Caymans etc. with limited storage are sadly over. I have had a GTS on order since the beginning of the year, but delayed final spec due to the facelift. I couldn’t have another car like the Q3 with out of date MMI. I get really peed off at the lack of info coming out of Porsche, but as it seems the GTS is maybe 18 months away, I guess I’ll be cancelling. I looked at the Velar, incredibly overpriced IMHO, a reasonabley specced 2.0 4 cyl for the same price as a V6 Macan? And mainly diesels. Liked the Audi SQ5, a little smaller, nice quality. Tried to configure one, and it’s the same as Porsche “all slots sold out “ code words for they are changing all the engines for the new regs. I’m not ready for electric yet. I’ll admit to being prejudiced against battery power due to years dealing with sub-sea batteries and electronics, and against Jaguar and Land Rover due to colleagues experiences. I haven’t ’t had a Merc for years since they blue-tacked on the iPad, though the top spec new A-Class i/ E-class interior is a big improvement. If I could be persuaded to go EV, it might be the Audi e-tron which looks stunning in concept until the accountants reshape it. So what now? I’m actually hoping the reports of the new 2.0 litre Macan engine (as in the Golf R) being as powerful as the existing S model are true, that would be enough for me. Also hoping they introduce a decent Grey leather like every other quality manufacturer!
Present: Macan S 2019 (PK1QF9N7), Audi Q3 S-line Quattro
Previous: Maserati Ghibli, 944, 911, Cayman, many Benz & BMW coupes. Sahara Beige Capri with brown vinyl roof. And a Renault R4L. (I'd like another).
User avatar
Wing Commander
Posts: 19871
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:43 pm
Location: Wiltshire

Post by Wing Commander »

johnd wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:52 am
MikeM wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:20 am A turbo, dependent on your drive style can return 25mpg and power to weight is not an issue, added with some comfort seats, full leather and no sports chrono.
From everything I've seen and read, current-model petrol Macans struggle to deliver a long-term average of better than 20mpg. Just take a look at Fuelly for example - the central band is 18-22. I know my SD is pretty much par for the course at (a true) 32mpg on Fuelly (http://www.fuelly.com/car/porsche/macan ... edo/439294 is my record) and I'm not wanting or expecting to change my driving style.

Hi John. If price is not a significant limitation, is the difference between 20mpg and 25mpg really a deal breaker? :geek: ;)
Simon

Sold: 2016 Rhodium Silver Macan 2.0
Sold: 2013 Platinum Silver 911 (991.1) C2
Sold: 2017 Carmine Red Panamera 4
Mine: 991.2 Carrera T Racing Yellow 06/04/2018
johnd
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:23 pm

Post by johnd »

Wing Commander wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 8:22 pm Hi John. If price is not a significant limitation, is the difference between 20mpg and 25mpg really a deal breaker? :geek: ;)
I know it might seem perverse or difficult to understand for many, but I find myself in a real dilemma. One of my pleasures in life is driving a higher performance car, but I can't easily accommodate more than one car (plus my knees are getting a little dodgy for anything too low) so it has to be something of an all-rounder, including 4wd for eg rural winter driving, farm visits etc.

But as a professional scientist I know that global warming is real and happening inexorably & faster than many may realise. So I do feel the obligation not to add to CO2 levels in too profligate a way. So my way of reconciling these two irreconcilable objectives is to set effectively a red line for mpg which happens to be 25mpg or above (a true long-term 25 that is, not an MFD 25 that you can see sometimes if you're careful). I know this is an arbitrary number and if I found something really appealing that did eg 24 then I might be tempted. Equally, if I set the bar too much over 25 then there's unlikely to be anything satisfying to drive that's in the frame. Overall it's just my way of resolving this conflict and it's another reason for looking hard at the I-Pace.
Macan SD (Rhodium) www.porsche-code.com/PH4H6XU3 June 2016

Real mpg at Fuelly
Col Lamb
Posts: 9323
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:38 pm
Location: Lancashire

Post by Col Lamb »

johnd wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:55 am
Col Lamb wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 10:28 am The problem is that the criteria currently do not stack up.
Don't stack up in what sense? That there's no car currently available that meets them - yes, agree 100%.

But I don't see any reason why they couldn't be met if a manufacturer chose to do so. Golf R typically achieves a consumption of 26-29mpg (http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/golf_r, say 27-28. Shave off a couple of mpg for a somewhat larger/taller/heavier body (though partly compensated by a latest-tech engine) and you should be able to achieve eg 26mpg.

The other factors are just design decisions. But perhaps it's inevitable that a premium car needs to be made by a premium maker like Porsche, Audi, JLR, MB etc and, for one reason or another, they're not making this sort of model. What would probably have won my vote would be a smaller Macan (aka Majun or Mac Mini maybe). Once you decide on a transverse engine (limited to 2l or maybe 2.5l) then that should enable you to completely rethink the packaging and retain Macan interior space but in a smaller, lighter body.

But I guess the time for this logical development of the Porsche model range may well have passed the priorities now being dealing with dieselgate and associated emissions/consumption issues etc and looking forwards to EVs and hybrids.
You have answered your own questions in this and your post previous to to this one of mine.

There is no compact SUV that meets your criteria.

I would add than it is highly unlikely that any high powered compact SUV that is likey to be released soon will come close, unless it is an EV.

If you have not looked at one go and see an iPace, but it is not a compact car so I suppose then that that does not meet the criteria. If you look more closely at an iPace then the base £64k is a marketing ploy by the time a few comfort extras are added its an £80k car. Seriously, do you really want to drive a mark 1 Jaguar, I would rather lay waste with a gas guzzler than buy anothet Jag, once bitten never again.

The only possible one is not yet on the market and I am unsure if it will be. The Mini EV is due out next year and if they make a Countryman version then that may well meet all your criteria.

Currently the only vehicle on the road that has :-
High seating position
Sub 5s 0-60
50 mpg

The only thing is that it only has 2 wheels.

My motorcycle was 4s 0-60, comfortable and always gave more than 50 mpg
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 »

Col Lamb wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:18 pm If you have not looked at one go and see an iPace, but it is not a compact car so I suppose then that that does not meet the criteria. If you look more closely at an iPace then the base £64k is a marketing ploy by the time a few comfort extras are added its an £80k car. Seriously, do you really want to drive a mark 1 Jaguar, I would rather lay waste with a gas guzzler than buy anothet Jag, once bitten never again.
Thanks for the comments - appreciated. Yes I have seen I-Pace a couple of times at the roadshows a few weeks back. The demo cars are not quite in the showrooms yet but this week / next week apparently (though not allowed out for a road-test anywhere yet pending a software update apparently :shock: )

Yes I know it's a risk which is why I'm taking my time to make a final decision and not too bothered if delivery ended up being eg next March so that it wouldn't be quite v1.00. It would also be nice if the national charging network were eg 1 year further advanced, but it will happen - just be 2020 rather than 2019. But the more I think about it, the more the I-Pace seems like the right decision, just a shame it's JLR rather than Porsche.
Macan SD (Rhodium) www.porsche-code.com/PH4H6XU3 June 2016

Real mpg at Fuelly
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

Mike and his Macan wrote: Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:04 pm 10 hour charge time at home seems too long....Evo’s rating.
The thing is, you rarely need to charge from flat to full capacity at home. Typically I need to charge for 4 or 5 hours overnight to start the next day with a 80-90% charge. My charge rate at 7 kW is 20 mph, so 5 hours charge = 100 miles added range. But even if I did need a full 10 hour charge overnight it would be relatively easy in most scenarios. But never been even close to that yet.
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

johnd wrote: Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:45 am I know this is totally personal preference but I do prefer the practicality and chuckability of driving somewhat smaller cars with a better turning circle.
I would check the turning circle of the iPace if you think this is important as it has a seriously long wheelbase - even longer than my Model X which has the turning circle of a truck! Not that it really causes any issues once you get used to it.

Sounds like the iPace would tick all your other boxes and probably more boxes overall than anything else on the market. Or how about a Volvo XC40 T5? Might not be quite quick enough for you (247 hp, 6 sec 0-60, 140 mph) , but probably the perfect size with upmarket interior options. Now I thought the T5 was supposed to be a hybrid from all the press reports, but no mention of it on the Volvo website - just shows it as a petrol engine.
johnd
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:23 pm

Post by johnd »

Peteski wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:08 pm I would check the turning circle of the iPace if you think this is important as it has a seriously long wheelbase - even longer than my Model X which has the turning circle of a truck! Not that it really causes any issues once you get used to it.
Yes, sorry, I should have included the XC40 in my list of possibles but as you say the 0-60 (just as a benchmark for general performance feel) is good but not great - not much better than my SD for instance, whereas the I-Pace should be in a different league. On balance, that level of performance plus the interest in owning an EV is probably sufficiently appealing to trump the XC40's smaller size.

On turning circle: yes I know that won't improve from the Macan - one of the inevitable trade-offs unfortunately. I guess it's partly a result of pushing the wheels out to the corners.
Macan SD (Rhodium) www.porsche-code.com/PH4H6XU3 June 2016

Real mpg at Fuelly
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

johnd wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:02 pm
Peteski wrote: Wed Jul 18, 2018 12:08 pm I would check the turning circle of the iPace if you think this is important as it has a seriously long wheelbase - even longer than my Model X which has the turning circle of a truck! Not that it really causes any issues once you get used to it.
Yes, sorry, I should have included the XC40 in my list of possibles but as you say the 0-60 (just as a benchmark for general performance feel) is good but not great - not much better than my SD for instance, whereas the I-Pace should be in a different league. On balance, that level of performance plus the interest in owning an EV is probably sufficiently appealing to trump the XC40's smaller size.

On turning circle: yes I know that won't improve from the Macan - one of the inevitable trade-offs unfortunately. I guess it's partly a result of pushing the wheels out to the corners.
Moving to an EV was a complete game changer for me in terms of performance and convenience, to the point where I would struggle to go back to anything else. I would also miss the other inherent benefits of an EV like starting out every day without having to think about fuel and being able to remotely switch on the cabin climate control (which has been superb in this heatwave!). Also no morning warm-up routine required. Those are benefits I didn't even think about before choosing an EV, but now they seem obvious!

As long as Jaguar have done their homework, the iPace EV powertrain should be a revelation coming from an SD. Porsche really need to get their EV act together on their SUVs. I would love to see a full EV Cayenne or Macan!
Post Reply

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post