This is an interesting 'forum etiquette' issue; surely by stating 'imho' you do not have to be qualified to make any statement! There's a few posters on here who should use 'imho' a little more often (imho, of course )
Macan 2.0 Test Drive
Not in a rush but yes middle of next year I would imagine!Caster wrote: ↑Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:53 pm Nice write up nozydog + glad you enjoyed the 2.0L.
From my previous test drives of the pre facelift 2.0L's I know what you mean about the lighter front end + share your praise of the pdk. Sounds like you're sold on the 2.0L now + does this mean you'll be ordering?
PS... I'll look forward to trying a 2.0L next year for a possible future purchase.
Rigger wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:02 am “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.......
Yes it didn’t feel pedestrian & unrefined to me, it actually felt very similar to my 6 pot beemer, only with a lighter more pointy front end (as you’ve noted) I also actually liked how it sounded when revved hard... both CAR & Autocar have stated that to them it sounded ‘better’ than the six pot (just their opinion of course, but I have always respected the opinions of both)adrian991 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:19 pm....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...
.... the weight difference will still be an advantage with the 2 litre. I also think the lighter car is more "pointy... 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....
Love it, Col you can always be relied on to give me my weekly laugh. If it's not the exact same specification as yours then it's no good!!
http://www.porsche-code.com/PGTU3KJ5
Why shouldn’t it?? Should a Porsche do 0-60 in under 6 seconds or have a minimum of 300hp? Or is it the VAG engine? The new S will have one too, albeit a six pot! Or is it simply the low cylinder count that offends you? Even though it is as fast as many Porsche’s of yesteryear!! I’m interested to know
Nice to see you're mellowing towards the 2.0L Col!
Have a great Christmas + hope your Turbo's going well - I must test drive the new one when it's out
Dave
Macan SD - Volcano Grey (with mudflaps)
Macan SD - Volcano Grey (with mudflaps)
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post