RE: Porsche Macan facelift: Driven
Discussion
cvega said:
aeropilot said:
0-60 times have been a pointless measure of a cars performance for half a century now......and yet people are still fixated on it 
If they're such a pointless measure why does every single car produced, including family diesel hacks, quote the figure?
aeropilot said:
J4CKO said:
I am guessing this is the base engine ?
Hence 4 cylinders and "only" doing 139 mph and getting to sixty in a yawning 6.7 seconds, it will be fine for those who buy it, they kind of have to offer a range of engines, quicker than the original 928 to sixty.
0-60 times have been a pointless measure of a cars performance for half a century now......and yet people are still fixated on it Hence 4 cylinders and "only" doing 139 mph and getting to sixty in a yawning 6.7 seconds, it will be fine for those who buy it, they kind of have to offer a range of engines, quicker than the original 928 to sixty.
If it wasnt mentioned, people would ask anyway, its just a convenient, if blunt, yardstick.
30 to 70 is perhaps better as it mostly rules out traction advantages but most arent sure what is a good figure, well non petrolheads arent, but 0-60 most punters are familiar with.
6.7 is what this car can reach sixty in, so that leads me to believe that driven normally it should be plenty brisk enough for most people, if it were 10 seconds it would do its job but would be well below whats expected of a car wearing a Porsche badge, as it is, it just about qualifies, if you want to go faster spend a bit more.
Wonder why they’ve used the golf gti performance variant of this engine rather than the 310ps golf R variant! Either way a jb4 will plug in and give it more power! Still at this price point from this manufacturer I’d expect the 3litre v6 as a minimum
Prefer the rear lights of the old macan too
Prefer the rear lights of the old macan too
J4CKO said:
aeropilot said:
J4CKO said:
I am guessing this is the base engine ?
Hence 4 cylinders and "only" doing 139 mph and getting to sixty in a yawning 6.7 seconds, it will be fine for those who buy it, they kind of have to offer a range of engines, quicker than the original 928 to sixty.
0-60 times have been a pointless measure of a cars performance for half a century now......and yet people are still fixated on it Hence 4 cylinders and "only" doing 139 mph and getting to sixty in a yawning 6.7 seconds, it will be fine for those who buy it, they kind of have to offer a range of engines, quicker than the original 928 to sixty.
If it wasnt mentioned, people would ask anyway, its just a convenient, if blunt, yardstick.
30 to 70 is perhaps better as it mostly rules out traction advantages but most arent sure what is a good figure, well non petrolheads arent, but 0-60 most punters are familiar with.
Today, 0-100 would be the same comparable measurement, not 0-60....but automotive media is still fixated on 0-60.
And, has always been at the mercy of traction and gearing, and hasn't really been much a logical measure of anything since the mid-70's, but, its 'traditional' so instead of education, we continue the pointless top trumps figures...
As you say, even back in the day, 30-50, 50-70 etc times in various gears, were always done by the major mag road tests......but you try and find that much more relevant info today!
aeropilot said:
J4CKO said:
aeropilot said:
J4CKO said:
I am guessing this is the base engine ?
Hence 4 cylinders and "only" doing 139 mph and getting to sixty in a yawning 6.7 seconds, it will be fine for those who buy it, they kind of have to offer a range of engines, quicker than the original 928 to sixty.
0-60 times have been a pointless measure of a cars performance for half a century now......and yet people are still fixated on it Hence 4 cylinders and "only" doing 139 mph and getting to sixty in a yawning 6.7 seconds, it will be fine for those who buy it, they kind of have to offer a range of engines, quicker than the original 928 to sixty.
If it wasnt mentioned, people would ask anyway, its just a convenient, if blunt, yardstick.
30 to 70 is perhaps better as it mostly rules out traction advantages but most arent sure what is a good figure, well non petrolheads arent, but 0-60 most punters are familiar with.
Today, 0-100 would be the same comparable measurement, not 0-60....but automotive media is still fixated on 0-60.
And, has always been at the mercy of traction and gearing, and hasn't really been much a logical measure of anything since the mid-70's, but, its 'traditional' so instead of education, we continue the pointless top trumps figures...
As you say, even back in the day, 30-50, 50-70 etc times in various gears, were always done by the major mag road tests......but you try and find that much more relevant info today!
alexrogers92 said:
Engines aside - I'm wondering if they've fixed the pointlessly heavy steering...
All of that aside, it looks typically nice as Macan's always have done. I'm sure it'll be a lovely car.
Interesting quote as I own the 2015 model diesel version of this but I can’t say I’ve ever thought the steering as ‘heavy’ I fact I thought it was very light and smoothe.All of that aside, it looks typically nice as Macan's always have done. I'm sure it'll be a lovely car.
I also drive an Audi A3 and a 991 and the Macans steering is comparable.
I don’t believe I have the steering+ option either.
r1flyguy1 said:
Interesting quote as I own the 2015 model diesel version of this but I can’t say I’ve ever thought the steering as ‘heavy’ I fact I thought it was very light and smoothe.
I also drive an Audi A3 and a 991 and the Macans steering is comparable.
I don’t believe I have the steering+ option either.
I also drive an Audi A3 and a 991 and the Macans steering is comparable.
I don’t believe I have the steering+ option either.
Interesting. Maybe it's just me. I found them to have far heavier steering than say Audi's SQ5.
alexrogers92 said:
Interesting. Maybe it's just me. I found them to have far heavier steering than say Audi's SQ5.
Or maybe just the one you drove/driveMaybe me not you! Had an Audi Q7 for a couple of weeks last month and steering felt exactly the same!
I’m going to have to go drive mine now and see if I can see what you mean
maybe I just never noticed.Dale487 said:
Why haven't Porsche put a more powerful version of the EA888 engine in the base car? The S has c100ps more, surely even 50ps more would be a big enough gap? The price difference is less than £2.5K & the S has better wheels (meaning the optional wheels are cheaper too).
I’m wondering the same thing. Their pricing doesn’t make sense, £2500 extra for 100bhp more and 2 extra cylinders seems like a no brainier. They either should have had a 300bhp version of the 2.0 or charged less for the base model!Let’s be equitable about the 2.0 version.
Unless there is the option to specify 2.0 badging, most owners will do without and bask in the knowledge that most road users will just see a Macan, and not a Macan 2.0 or Macan V6.
So it fulfils the aspirationally-inclined mindset quite nicely...
Unless there is the option to specify 2.0 badging, most owners will do without and bask in the knowledge that most road users will just see a Macan, and not a Macan 2.0 or Macan V6.
So it fulfils the aspirationally-inclined mindset quite nicely...
Well 2x observations for a start - firstly, why is the 4 pot quoted as heavier than the V6 - doesn't make any sense. if this is correct then no doubt performance will be blunted further whereas it should narrow the gap being lighter in reality.
Secondly, why havn't they used the 300hp version of the E888 found in S3 or Golf R, surely a better option for all its sporting potential if you have to have a 4 pot in a car like this?
Secondly, why havn't they used the 300hp version of the E888 found in S3 or Golf R, surely a better option for all its sporting potential if you have to have a 4 pot in a car like this?
k are you comparing an SUV to a hot hatch on Performance figures!!! Great piece of reporting there Andy JB said:
Well 2x observations for a start - firstly, why is the 4 pot quoted as heavier than the V6 - doesn't make any sense. if this is correct then no doubt performance will be blunted further whereas it should narrow the gap being lighter in reality.
Secondly, why havn't they used the 300hp version of the E888 found in S3 or Golf R, surely a better option for all its sporting potential if you have to have a 4 pot in a car like this?
Even the 270, 280 or 290PS versions that have been in the Leon Cupra make more sense.Secondly, why havn't they used the 300hp version of the E888 found in S3 or Golf R, surely a better option for all its sporting potential if you have to have a 4 pot in a car like this?
Andy JB said:
Secondly, why havn't they used the 300hp version of the E888 found in S3 or Golf R, surely a better option for all its sporting potential if you have to have a 4 pot in a car like this?
Probably for the same reason Porsche didn't use the 300+hp SQ5 version of the same V6 diesel engine in the old Macan......Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff