Gen 2 - 2.0 VS 3.0 S - MPG - residuals?

All Porsche Macan Related Discussion
Post Reply
Am89
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:41 am

Post by Am89 »

So my mums in the market for a small 4x4 and what better than a macan? She travels around 100 miles per day, mostly motorway so needs something economical. How does the 2.0 compare to the 3.0 in terms of mpg? Being a heavy car I’d have thought maybe the 2.0 maybe underpowered? She doesn’t drive fast so performance isn’t an issue - also how are residuals on both, would a 2.0 be hard to sell on?

Just macan
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2019 6:29 pm

Post by Just macan »

I have the 2l....it is a gem and fast as you want it to be.
Mpg 32 combined
Love it..
User avatar
PaulR
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:22 am
Location: Scotland

Post by PaulR »

The 2.0L model exists in order to attract new customers to the Porsche brand. In particular people who might be put off by a 3.0L V6, as well as in some APAC countries where these are significantly cheaper to tax. It's perfectly good enough for most people's needs. Its fuel economy is around 10% better than the 3.0L. I doubt residuals and saleability of the 2.0L model are significantly different to the 3.0L one.
Current - Macan III GTS
Previous - Macan II GTS, Macan I GTS
Am89
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:41 am

Post by Am89 »

Options wise I’m thinking,

Jet Black or volcano grey
21” turbo design wheels
Stock 8 way seats ( front heating ) w Alcantara
Air suspension with PASM - smoothen ride with 21s
Pan roof - still in 2 minds
Heated wheel
Privacy glass
Black exhaust tips if it’s a 2.0 or stock silver if it’s a 3.0
High gloss window trims
75l fuel tank
Power steering plus
PDLS+ headlights
Dimming mirrors
Surround view camera w park assist
Speed limit and lane assist - still in 2 minds?
Adaptive cruise - still in 2 minds?
Heated windscreen
Ioniser
Fire extinguisher - still unsure?
Comfort lighting
White dials possibly?
Bose audio
User avatar
pmg
Posts: 2983
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:31 pm

Post by pmg »

Am89 wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:22 pm Options wise I’m thinking,

Jet Black or volcano grey
21” turbo design wheels
Stock 8 way seats ( front heating ) w Alcantara
Air suspension with PASM - smoothen ride with 21s
Pan roof - still in 2 minds
Heated wheel
Privacy glass
Black exhaust tips if it’s a 2.0 or stock silver if it’s a 3.0
High gloss window trims
75l fuel tank
Power steering plus
PDLS+ headlights
Dimming mirrors
Surround view camera w park assist
Speed limit and lane assist - still in 2 minds?
Adaptive cruise - still in 2 minds?
Heated windscreen
Ioniser
Fire extinguisher - still unsure?
Comfort lighting
White dials possibly?
Bose audio
That is a very high spec for a 2 litre. When Porsche pre-ordered such for dealers at the launch of the facelift, they did not sell and many were discounted. If you want a high spec like the above, I would suggest the S will be the "cheaper" car in the sense of the total cost of ownership.
2019 Macan S Porsche code PKW8WKI8
MacanArif
Posts: 1801
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:54 pm

Post by MacanArif »

Am89 wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:14 pm So my mums in the market for a small 4x4 and what better than a macan? She travels around 100 miles per day, mostly motorway so needs something economical. How does the 2.0 compare to the 3.0 in terms of mpg? Being a heavy car I’d have thought maybe the 2.0 maybe underpowered? She doesn’t drive fast so performance isn’t an issue - also how are residuals on both, would a 2.0 be hard to sell on?
I've said this several times on other threads, please advise your mum to go for the 3.0 as it will be a much better car to drive and will also have better residuals. I've had several Macans and have driven the original 2.0 which is the only Macan I wouldn't buy.

I know some people like the 2.0 but for me it was underwhelming, but if your mum drives it and likes it then it's a personal choice.
Current:
992 Turbo (July 23)
MG4 EV Trophy Long Range
VW Caravelle 6.1 4motion DSG
Suzuki Swift Sport

Previous Macan SD, Macan Turbo, Macan Turbo, 991.1 C4GTS coupe, 996 C4S coupe, Macan Turbo, 991.2 C4GTS coupe; 991.2 GT3; 992 C2S; 991.1 Turbo S
Am89
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:41 am

Post by Am89 »

Value for money does seem better on the 3.0S. Small things such as the stock quad pipes, grey instrument dial and the engine of course - is the 3.0 a Porsche engine or is it from VW?
MacanArif
Posts: 1801
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:54 pm

Post by MacanArif »

Am89 wrote: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:27 pm Value for money does seem better on the 3.0S. Small things such as the stock quad pipes, grey instrument dial and the engine of course - is the 3.0 a Porsche engine or is it from VW?
I believe that all the engines are now shared with VW/Audi - as you say the 3.0 is only 2.5k more and so in my book represents value for money and will have stronger residuals. The original 2.0 was really underpowered, they gave me a demonstrator to use for a couple of days and I was really keen to give it back.
Current:
992 Turbo (July 23)
MG4 EV Trophy Long Range
VW Caravelle 6.1 4motion DSG
Suzuki Swift Sport

Previous Macan SD, Macan Turbo, Macan Turbo, 991.1 C4GTS coupe, 996 C4S coupe, Macan Turbo, 991.2 C4GTS coupe; 991.2 GT3; 992 C2S; 991.1 Turbo S
Makanik
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 9:20 am
Location: North Cotswolds

Post by Makanik »

I’ve owned both 2.0 (gen1) and S (gen 2).

I got close to 30 mpg from the 2.0 overall and the 3.0 gives me about 28, so not a huge difference.

There’s plenty of go in the 2 litre, although it does need pushing to release it. I suspect your mum would be more than happy with the performance. Having said that, the price difference to upgrade to the S is not that large. For many of us it’s worth paying.

As per PaulR above, I doubt there’s any significant difference in residuals and saleability between the 2 and 3 litre models.
Current: 2022 Macan S http://www.porsche-code.com/PP4FF9A4
Sold: 2019 Macan S
Sold: 2016 Macan 2.0
Sold: 2011 Cayman
KGB
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:12 pm

Post by KGB »

I bought a new 2.0 in January last year, so far I have covered 7,500 mostly rural A/B road miles and mainly driver only or only one passenger.
I find the power/speed absolutely fine under these conditions and have averaged around 30mpg.
I had a 3.0 for a couple of days while mine was in for maintenance, I did notice the fuel consumption difference although I drove it the same as I do the 2.0, my thoughts afterwards is that the 3.0 for my situation is probably a waste. If I was doing 100 miles per day on motorway then I would opt for the 3.0.
I have 20' wheels on steel suspension and never once have I regretted that, even on A and B roads I feel the ride is more than acceptable and the turbo wheels in black look fantastic.
One thing I would change is the standard seats, if I had the choice again I would go for 14 way seats.

IMG_2738.JPG

Post Reply

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post