Macan Health Check Results

All Porsche Macan Related Discussion
User avatar
Paul
Posts: 8603
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 6:19 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Post by Paul »

Don’t forget that “health checks” are actually sales aids......😉

Here’s mine from last month at 24000 miles or so......

474ED23E-9758-4BD0-85C0-9F5EA2A8FEDD.jpeg

1st Sapphire SD
2nd Sapphire GTS
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=4296
Current 992 S Cab
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=9845&p=196465#p196465

TheTraveller
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:30 pm
Location: South Yorkshire

Post by TheTraveller »

I think the wear is excessive, for such a low mileage.
The report shown earlier in the subject shows greater wear at the front, than at the rear. This will allways be the case, as all vehicles have 2/3 breaking at the front and 1/3 at the rear. Due to the transference of weight, under breaking (while travelling forward). That's why when reversing, the breaks seems very poor, (the car does not dip down the same when breaking in reverse).
User avatar
RickZ
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:06 pm

Post by RickZ »

Guy wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:50 pm ^ First thing I’d do is to buy a micrometer and check/monitor the discs myself. Who knows what margin of error there is in a ‘Health Check’, if they were even measured!
After 40 years in heavy engineering I find it hard to believe that a so called Porsche technician can mess up using a digital Micrometer and I suspect for the time it takes it's in Porsches interest to complete these measurements correctly. I think the best option is to wait and see if my OPC advises the discs on my Macan require replacing while I own it and then if I distrust that advice complete the measurements myself. The 2 year service is due in October it will be interesting to see how much more the discs have worn between now and then given I'll only do a couple of thousand miles in 7 months....
Vulcano Grey 2019 Macan 2.0
White 2017 Macan 2.0 returned to OPC for full refund
Blue 2017 Audi SQ5 sold
White 2016 Merc GLC Coup Premium Plus sold
Grey 2015 Audi S5 cabrio sold
White 2014 Audi SQ5 diesel sold
User avatar
Nuclear Nick
Posts: 3809
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:42 pm
Location: Bristol

Post by Nuclear Nick »

Fairynuff wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:33 pm
RickZ wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:19 pm My 2017 Macan with 3388 miles on the clock has just been through a Porsche health check which shows front pads and disc worn 30%
I am not a mechanic and I have spent very little time thinking about let alone studying braking systems but . . . every car has them, big cars have bigger ones than small cars but they all stop the car. I expect expensive cars to have better quality systems than cheaper cars. On the presumption that Porsche has better quality materials and better engineered systems why do the pads and the discs not last as long as other (cheaper) cars? My Q5 has just been serviced after 21,000 miles and the pads are 20% worn (80% good) I did not get a report on the discs I presume that's because there's little to no wear; why? . . . Why do the brakes on Porsche, a car with the best materials and superior engineering, fail so much quicker than other cars?
(Note: I estimate that 90% of my 21,000 miles was on local urban city roads)
Let me try to answer some of your doubts on this.

Brakes on road going passenger cars are a massive compromise of design, cost, wear resistance, corrosion resistance, driver feel (for a huge range of driver abilities), ease of maintenance, and so on, the list is long.

Porsche prioritise performance over many of the other criteria and the specification they have given to Brembo will reflect this in the size and composition of the materials used. As a result, wear rates and corrosion resistance will differ from other, lower performance road cars. For example, Porsche discs have a lower percentage of nickel in the cast iron discs. This gives a higher coefficient of friction for better braking performance, but lower corrosion and wear resistance. So it is an over simplification to say that Porsche have 'best quality' brakes, but 'they should therefore last longer'.

But crucially, wear rates in road cars massively depend on driver ability and attitude, as well as how the owner looks after their car. Drivers on here who report brakes wearing out in less than 20k miles clearly make heavy use of their brakes all of the time. This is also reflected in their tyre wear rates. Their passengers will feel it, and I suspect their licence may show a few additional entries too!

So again, it is inappropriate to conclude that Porsche brakes are 'not fit for purpose' based on one or two examples here where heavy use and perhaps a lack of care may have been factors. By lack of care, I mean not washing the car regularly and hence allowing damaging chemicals such as road salt to accelerate corrosion.

I hope this helps.
Nick

Defender 90 V8

991.2 C2 GTS

Macan Turbo - sold

BMW K1300S, BMW R1250 GSA
User avatar
Guy
Posts: 2148
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:06 am
Location: Warwickshire

Post by Guy »

RickZ wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:39 am I find it hard to believe that a so called Porsche technician can mess up using a digital Micrometer
Me too! But if you want re-assurance and to take ownership of the problem, then why not measure them yourself now? If only needs a cheap micrometre, no need for digital, and over time you will eliminate any measurement errors by taking comparative readings.
User avatar
Rab J
Posts: 1590
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 7:48 am
Location: Ballymena

Post by Rab J »

Guy wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:30 am
RickZ wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:39 am I find it hard to believe that a so called Porsche technician can mess up using a digital Micrometer
Me too! But if you want re-assurance and to take ownership of the problem, then why not measure them yourself now? If only needs a cheap micrometre, no need for digital, and over time you will eliminate any measurement errors by taking comparative readings.
Not sure how many people these days could read an analogue micrometer. :(
Macan GTS Carmine with 21" black sports classics ---Gone
991.2 GTS Carmine 2WD ---Gone
Cayenne E-Hybrid Coupe Jet Black
http://www.porsche-code.com/PL86QK50
User avatar
Nuclear Nick
Posts: 3809
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:42 pm
Location: Bristol

Post by Nuclear Nick »

TheTraveller wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:07 am I think the wear is excessive, for such a low mileage.
The report shown earlier in the subject shows greater wear at the front, than at the rear. This will allways be the case, as all vehicles have 2/3 breaking at the front and 1/3 at the rear. Due to the transference of weight, under breaking (while travelling forward). That's why when reversing, the breaks seems very poor, (the car does not dip down the same when breaking in reverse).
A number of misconceptions here, as well as misspelling! :lol:

The braking performance is not better or worse due to the direction of travel, it's due to the size of the brakes. The brakes are larger at the front because the weight transfer when traveling forwards, which is when most braking is done, creates greater friction between the tyres and the road and so it is possible, and necessary, to have larger brakes at the front. Conversely, with less weight on the rear tyres, the brakes are smaller to avoid the tendency to lock the wheels.
Nick

Defender 90 V8

991.2 C2 GTS

Macan Turbo - sold

BMW K1300S, BMW R1250 GSA
TheTraveller
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:30 pm
Location: South Yorkshire

Post by TheTraveller »

Nuclear Nick wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:09 am
TheTraveller wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:07 am I think the wear is excessive, for such a low mileage.
The report shown earlier in the subject shows greater wear at the front, than at the rear. This will allways be the case, as all vehicles have 2/3 breaking at the front and 1/3 at the rear. Due to the transference of weight, under breaking (while travelling forward). That's why when reversing, the breaks seems very poor, (the car does not dip down the same when breaking in reverse).
A number of misconceptions here, as well as misspelling! :lol:

The braking performance is not better or worse due to the direction of travel, it's due to the size of the brakes. The brakes are larger at the front because the weight transfer when traveling forwards, which is when most braking is done, creates greater friction between the tyres and the road and so it is possible, and necessary, to have larger brakes at the front. Conversely, with less weight on the rear tyres, the brakes are smaller to avoid the tendency to lock the wheels.
I think in essence, you've agreed with what I was saying. I mentioned that the brakes SEEM poor when in travelling in reverse, and not that they are. And a main reason the rear brakes are needed at all, is to assist in the vehicle stopping straight and true.
TheTraveller
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:30 pm
Location: South Yorkshire

Post by TheTraveller »

TheTraveller wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:43 pm
Nuclear Nick wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:09 am
TheTraveller wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:07 am I think the wear is excessive, for such a low mileage.
The report shown earlier in the subject shows greater wear at the front, than at the rear. This will allways be the case, as all vehicles have 2/3 breaking at the front and 1/3 at the rear. Due to the transference of weight, under breaking (while travelling forward). That's why when reversing, the breaks seems very poor, (the car does not dip down the same when breaking in reverse).
A number of misconceptions here, as well as misspelling! :lol:

The braking performance is not better or worse due to the direction of travel, it's due to the size of the brakes. The brakes are larger at the front because the weight transfer when traveling forwards, which is when most braking is done, creates greater friction between the tyres and the road and so it is possible, and necessary, to have larger brakes at the front. Conversely, with less weight on the rear tyres, the brakes are smaller to avoid the tendency to lock the wheels.
I think in essence, you've agreed with what I was saying. I mentioned that the brakes SEEM poor when in travelling in reverse, and not that they are. And a main reason the rear brakes are needed at all, is to assist in the vehicle stopping straight and true.
I also said that two thirds of the breaking is done at the front, and one third at the rear. And is so, and that is why larger brakes are needed at the front, due to weight transference. And if you are bringing tyres into the equation, with regard to braking, why do all performance cars, have larger tyres at the rear, when according to your piece they should be at the front?
If you borrow a brake meter from a garage, which many still need due to the fact that they haven't got the facilities, to MOT constant 4 wheel drive vehicles. And then go out and do a brake test driving forward, and then in reverse, see the difference in performance.
User avatar
pmg
Posts: 2970
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:31 pm

Post by pmg »

TheTraveller wrote: Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:24 am
TheTraveller wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:43 pm
Nuclear Nick wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:09 am
And if you are bringing tyres into the equation, with regard to braking, why do all performance cars, have larger tyres at the rear, when according to your piece they should be at the front?
Surely the larger tyres at the back on performance cars are related to them tending to be rear wheel drive and getting the power down plus cornering grip, the braking issue being decided separately.
2019 Macan S Porsche code PKW8WKI8
Post Reply

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post