Macan 2.0 Test Drive

All the latest Macan News and Reviews
davetronic
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 11:53 am

Post by davetronic »

My main disappointment with the 2.0 being introduced first was that I couldn’t bring myself to spend over £60k on a 2 litre SUV, which also steered me away from a petrol Velar. Economy is not a deciding factor for me, so another £2.5k for a V6 S model with a slightly better base spec seemed to make more sense. Can’t be arsed waiting forever for the GTS so an S it will probably be.
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
Pivot
Posts: 1535
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 7:41 pm

Post by Pivot »

Rigger wrote:“I would not touch a 2.0 litre Macan, imho it should not have the Porsche badge on the car...”

Hmmmmm a tad harsh. That’s a bit like a 911 owner saying anything other than a 911 shouldn’t have a Porsche badge. Or then that lends itself to a 356 owner saying..... “pah those 911 imposters.... they shouldn’t have a Porsche badge. “. Or perhaps the Porsche badge should only be on 911 GT focussed cars and not those “cooking 911, Audi TT lookalikes.....”

Will now sit back with pop corn......

PS ..... of course GTS models dont count as true GT models so let’s deal with those too....
PPS.... PDK? Pah...... no way can they be proper Porsche without a manual gearbox.......

PPPS...... back to popcorn.......
PPPPS. What heretic fitted VW/Audi engine to ALL Macans again?! Is it a 924 on stilts?

The one that saved Porsche from going out of business!

[emoji897][emoji3047][emoji38]
Current: 911 Carrera T - PPM9RU51
On order: 911 Targa 4S - PPDV8NY4
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

Sounds like the 2L is a great choice for those who like to run up and down the gearbox with plenty of revs at relatively sane speeds.

Different comparison, as both 6-pots, but I preferred the smaller 2.7L Boxster engine over the S simply because you had to work it a little harder to get the performance and it was still plenty quick enough for public roads. Winding the clock way back, the early '70's 911 engines in 2.2S, 2.4S and 2.7RS specs were a lot more fun to drive than the later 3.0L Carrera/SC engines, which in turn were a little more fun than the 3.2L Carrera. Basically as the torque increased and flattened out they became more refined, but less fun to thrash around on public roads. For much the same reason I preferred the 3.6L 996 engine to the 3.8L DFI 997.2. The latter had more power and torque but was relatively dull to drive, especially at lower road speeds. Winding either of those engines up would take you very rapidly into license losing territory, so there's always that to consider in a non-track car.

With a large SUV, for me the main attraction of a larger engine is the refinement and effortless torque. For a daily driver that always wins for me over a high revving peaky unit. But I can see why some would actually prefer the 2.0L unit.
User avatar
pmg
Posts: 2983
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:31 pm

Post by pmg »

Peteski wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2018 9:54 am Sounds like the 2L is a great choice for those who like to run up and down the gearbox with plenty of revs at relatively sane speeds.

Different comparison, as both 6-pots, but I preferred the smaller 2.7L Boxster engine over the S simply because you had to work it a little harder to get the performance and it was still plenty quick enough for public roads. Winding the clock way back, the early '70's 911 engines in 2.2S, 2.4S and 2.7RS specs were a lot more fun to drive than the later 3.0L Carrera/SC engines, which in turn were a little more fun than the 3.2L Carrera. Basically as the torque increased and flattened out they became more refined, but less fun to thrash around on public roads. For much the same reason I preferred the 3.6L 996 engine to the 3.8L DFI 997.2. The latter had more power and torque but was relatively dull to drive, especially at lower road speeds. Winding either of those engines up would take you very rapidly into license losing territory, so there's always that to consider in a non-track car.

With a large SUV, for me the main attraction of a larger engine is the refinement and effortless torque. For a daily driver that always wins for me over a high revving peaky unit. But I can see why some would actually prefer the 2.0L unit.
Agree I have driven diesel BMW's for the last 9 years and it was the better low down torque and refinement that attracted me to the S over the 2.0 and probably the forthcoming GTS
2019 Macan S Porsche code PKW8WKI8
nozydog
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:07 am

Post by nozydog »

Pivot wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:52 pm Good call nozydog! Suit you Sir!

As a fellow beemer driver, I appreciate your feedback. I will be taking 2.0L for a drive as well so we can compare notes.
Re PDK, did you use paddle shift or just your footwork?
I used the left paddle quite a bit, at the times when I really wanted some pull and the revs were fairly low. A blip or two on the left paddle and that needle flicks from say 2000 to over 4000 and suddenly the power is there, I really did find this great fun. I don’t think a car has to be mega fast to be fun. Obviously the other half of the package is the body control which never disappoints either. I’d heard it was good, and it is really superb for a jacked up car like this. The test car was loaded with PASM/air but I’ll be going back to test one without air as I wasn’t intending to have that! (I did want to test standard suspension too, but the rep said the chances of them ever stocking a demo with no PASM were slim)
nozydog
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:07 am

Post by nozydog »

davetronic wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:20 am My main disappointment with the 2.0 being introduced first was that I couldn’t bring myself to spend over £60k on a 2 litre SUV, which also steered me away from a petrol Velar. Economy is not a deciding factor for me, so another £2.5k for a V6 S model with a slightly better base spec seemed to make more sense. Can’t be arsed waiting forever for the GTS so an S it will probably be.
I’ll be spending no more than £52k as the 2L is identical spec apart from the engine! The only things I feel I need are:
Sports Seats (which give you some free leather!)
20” Wheels
PASM
Metallic paint (probably)
Auto dim
Heated Seats

There really is nothing more I need than this as it now comes with LED’s and Nav as standard! Also it’s not so much the economy for me but the front end weight, which definitely helps make for a more pointy car. I know some may say it can’t make much difference but 70kg is a hell of a weight and I’ve already read reviews (and felt for myself) suggesting the lighter lump gives a better steer!!
nozydog
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:07 am

Post by nozydog »

MCDK wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:51 pm Glad you are happy with the 2 litre but it's a bit meaningless unless you have compared it against a facelift 3 litre car.
Agreed and as I’m not buying until the middle of next year I’ll almost certainly try an S in the meantime out of interest!
mark-yorkshire
Posts: 3253
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:34 pm

Post by mark-yorkshire »

nozydog wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:11 am
davetronic wrote: Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:20 am My main disappointment with the 2.0 being introduced first was that I couldn’t bring myself to spend over £60k on a 2 litre SUV, which also steered me away from a petrol Velar. Economy is not a deciding factor for me, so another £2.5k for a V6 S model with a slightly better base spec seemed to make more sense. Can’t be arsed waiting forever for the GTS so an S it will probably be.
I’ll be spending no more than £52k as the 2L is identical spec apart from the engine! The only things I feel I need are:
Sports Seats (which give you some free leather!)
20” Wheels
PASM
Metallic paint (probably)
Auto dim
Heated Seats

There really is nothing more I need than this as it now comes with LED’s and Nav as standard! Also it’s not so much the economy for me but the front end weight, which definitely helps make for a more pointy car. I know some may say it can’t make much difference but 70kg is a hell of a weight and I’ve already read reviews (and felt for myself) suggesting the lighter lump gives a better steer!!
Suggest that you also add:
Heated steering wheel
£ 189.00
Smoking package
£ 38.00
2021. Macan 2.0 Gentian. 12/21
2019. 718 Boxster T Carrara white.
2018. Macan SD Volcano.
2005. 987.1 Boxster S. Black.
2015 . Macan SD . Agate grey.
2014. Macan SD . Jet black.
2012. 981 Boxster PDK . Agate.
2010. 987.2 Cayman PDK. Aqua.
adrian991
Posts: 246
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:18 pm

Post by adrian991 »

Col Lamb wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:12 pm If you have not driven any other Macan then if you take a used S, GTS or Turbo out on the road the 2.0 will seem very pedestrian and unrefined by comparison.

I would not touch a 2.0 litre Macan, imho it should not have the Porsche badge on the car.
I currently have a 991.2 C4 GTS , a 718 Boxster (wife's car) and have just p/x d my Macan GTS (after almost 3 years and 22k miles) for a new 2L Macan. I would agree that the new 2L does not give you the very quick acceleration of the Macan Turbo or Macan GTS due to the big difference in the power and torque, but to say it will seem very pedestrian and unrefined is a bit extreme. If you drive a Turbo/GTS on the public roads in the same way you would on a closed racetrack then yes the 2L will not keep up but on the road with "normal" quick driving there is very little to choose unless you engage in driving on the public roads like you would on a track which is just irresponsible.

To say it should not have a Porsche badge is a rather daft statement too, whether it's your opinion or not. Having myself owned 8 Porsche's and with the current three in the stable, this latest Macan is very worthy of that badge. Don't forget that all the cars that Porsche make have many VW and Audi components and as for the Macan, the previous generation models and the new model share a lot with the Audi Q5.

I went for the 2L primarily because with the change in the way my Macan GTS was being used, it was overkill for a 3 litre engine and the fuel economy, which translated into a short driving range, is not very good.. For the more spirited continental driving tours we do we have the sports cars, so the Macan is our general purpose utility car which gets the occasional longer distance drive (100 miles plus).

One very welcome improvement that comes with the 2L is the driver footwell space. The Audi Q5, on which the Macan was and is still based, always had an issue with right hand drive models with that large transmission tunnel intruding into the driver's footwell area which made it not that comfortable to find a resting place for your left foot. Audi offered a manual version as well and that was even worse. When I switched to the Macan GTS that most annoying design feature was carried over however the 2 litre has done away with this.

Back to performance, I have had this car for a week and driven it over 400 miles, the most noticeable improvement is it's range and bearing in mind the car is new, not run in and is on a set of 20 inch winter wheels and tyres, I am seeing a range capable of almost 500 miles compared to 370 or less on the Macan GTS. Initial acceleration is very good perfectly quick enough for road driving and works for me. The weight is a significant 100kg less than the new 3 litre S and my GTS which is very noticeable on a twisty road, it's also a result of the changes to the suspension links being aluminium which means the S will improve too. I had Air Suspension on the GTS and always felt it was kind of "floaty", that's all changed with the new Macan, it's much better than the GTS when pushing on down a bumpy country B road, again the S will probably feel better too but the weight difference will still be an advantage with the 2 litre. I also think the lighter car is more "pointy" at the front end and suits driving on roads with multiple bends.

As for refinement, the 2 litre is remarkably quiet, there is much less noise intrusion into the cabin, it sounds very smooth not at all like a 4 pot, but pushing higher in revs it makes its presence known and that's where the 6 cylinder does sound nicer. I don't have the sports exhaust so I have no idea what that does to the 4 cylinder, on the GTS it sounded ok at lower revs but when pushed to the higher revs I always thought it didn't sound quite right, compared to the 911 it was too artifical so I very rarely used it as the standard exhaust note made itself very noticeable, sometimes being discreet would have been useful.

To conclude it's always a personal choice and opinion, if I didn't have the 911 and 718 sports cars to use, and Macan was to be our only Porsche, I would probably have gone for the Macan S. However, anyone thinking of the choice between the Macan and Macan S will find not just the £2.5K difference but also overall running costs (insurance, first year VED) are all lower for the 2 litre and by doing the deal now as opposed to next March I also got a much better P/X for my GTS. The net difference to me to wait for the S would have doubled to over £5K for an identical configuration Macan S because of the additional depreciation on the GTS.
Last edited by adrian991 on Sat Dec 15, 2018 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deleted User 1874

Post by Deleted User 1874 »

Heated steering wheel comes under the category of something you can't live without once you take it for granted - even though you managed to survive for decades without it. A bit like mobile phones! For £189 I would tick that box for sure, unless for some reason I wasn't going to use the car through winter.
Post Reply

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post