Macan 2024 vs 2025 massive consumption difference?

[W1NGE]

Yes, I have a good testing scenario - I drive between two cities once a week, I take the same route, it's 300 kms each way, so 600 kms mostly on highway with little traffic that allows for constant 140-150 km/h. Weather conditions can vary but lately it's around 25C most of the time and this is the base value (28-30 kwh/100) I'm comparing to, driving 130-40 km/h in rain and wind results in 30+ kwh/100 in my car.

What struck me most is that my SA told me other clients noticed it too with someone mentioned doing the familiar route on one charge which is not possible with his car. So they are trying to figure it out because clients ask for this after giving back the loaner.

Software differencs controlling the motors not yet applied to earlier cars could be another explanation.

Battery degradation seems unlikely at this stage but throw that into the mix too.

Sponsored

 

[MatC21]

My personal car from March this year is much closer to your loaner in terms of consumption. So it looks more like something is off with your car.

 

[Yves]

I have an Early turbo and drive it on 20inch wheels with decent speed ... 120-130 km/h on the highway .... in winter I'm averaging 26kwh/100km now in summer 18.5 ... I do not think there is any difference in production / software, I do believe the wheels have more impact then the 5% and are more like 10% ...

 

[Fun TC Driving]

I have no idea whether there are differences between the same 2024 and its identical 2025 twin. I know that my early, early 2024 Turbo with 22” wheels has way more than enough range for all my local trips. I also plan ahead for our road trip[s and it has enough range for us there too.

Yet I know there are a small number here whose sort of unique daily circumstances or weekend trips to their cabin causes some issues for them., e.g., an extra 15 minute charging one or both ways. Based on my loaner 2024 base model with its 20” wheels, it gets about an additional 20 miles per charge. I believe that version could be helpful to those with stretched-range driving patterns.

 

[Station]

I saw one Porsche dealership video in which the Porsche rep said that having the rear wiper was a 4% range hit. Never saw it anywhere else; have no idea where they got that info.

I heard the wiper is 4 miles range difference in a couple of reviews. 4% sounds excessive (10-13 miles) for a wiper.

 

[Fun TC Driving]

I agree with you, thinking that four miles would be a reasoned estimate, not 4% range consequence.

 

[pm4s]

I do believe the wheels have more impact then the 5% and are more like 10% ...

Actually it's 7% but this is irrelevant as the WLTP test average speed is 46 km/h and the OP is doing 300 km stints at 140-150 km/h motorway speeds which means his average speed will be over 100 km/h or over twice the speed of the test. Consumption is not linear so any calculations based off WLTP will be inaccurate.
There is no magic in the 2025 models, just smaller/different rims/tyres/pressures/spec/weather conditions/driving style/etc.
While tyre compound, pressure, size, wear, etc. make a difference, wind especially rain make the biggest difference, plus weight (more equipment - heavier). Of course as with all cars biggest difference will be your right foot.
I also drove a 4 loaner, same suspension/wheels as my 4S. It was over 20% more efficient, going off the WLTP figure the difference between the 2 models is negligible, which shows how a test run inside a lab using specific, completely unrealistic conditions has nothing to do with real world driving.
If you are interested in real tests head over to youtube and check the excel file of Bjorn Nyland, Macan 4 on 22s at 120 km/h, consumption 27 kWh/km, range 350 km (I have rounded the figures).
This then gives the ill-informed ICE crowd a chance to cry about EVS how crap they are when "advertised range" is 613 km and you get 280 km (80% charge of 350 km).
Try explaining to them that a lab test with 46 km/h average speed at 23 deg C has no relevance to daily driving.
For anyone interested in the results but can't bothered to check consumption at this speed for efficient cars like Tesla M3 RWD Highland on 18s is ~15.5 kWh/km, SUVs on 22s range from 26 to 32 kWh/km for Chinese behemoths (E-HS9).

 

[Yves]

Actually it's 7% but this is irrelevant as the WLTP test average speed is 46 km/h and the OP is doing 300 km stints at 140-150 km/h motorway speeds which means his average speed will be over 100 km/h or over twice the speed of the test. Consumption is not linear so any calculations based off WLTP will be inaccurate.
There is no magic in the 2025 models, just smaller/different rims/tyres/pressures/spec/weather conditions/driving style/etc.
While tyre compound, pressure, size, wear, etc. make a difference, wind especially rain make the biggest difference, plus weight (more equipment - heavier). Of course as with all cars biggest difference will be your right foot.
I also drove a 4 loaner, same suspension/wheels as my 4S. It was over 20% more efficient, going off the WLTP figure the difference between the 2 models is negligible, which shows how a test run inside a lab using specific, completely unrealistic conditions has nothing to do with real world driving.
If you are interested in real tests head over to youtube and check the excel file of Bjorn Nyland, Macan 4 on 22s at 120 km/h, consumption 27 kWh/km, range 350 km (I have rounded the figures).
This then gives the ill-informed ICE crowd a chance to cry about EVS how crap they are when "advertised range" is 613 km and you get 280 km (80% charge of 350 km).
Try explaining to them that a lab test with 46 km/h average speed at 23 deg C has no relevance to daily driving.
For anyone interested in the results but can't bothered to check consumption at this speed for efficient cars like Tesla M3 RWD Highland on 18s is ~15.5 kWh/km, SUVs on 22s range from 26 to 32 kWh/km for Chinese behemoths (E-HS9).

I can easily beat the 27 at 120km/h and sometimes go as low as 20kwh/100km In fact in my daily drive where I have some slow 10km part that brings down average quite a bit but with stretches of well over 120 for the rest I have 22 with head wind and below 20 going back …

Like the test of the iX, well over 320 in winter but I never get that figure … so hard to compare …


Here 10km off highway with traffic lights but blasting well over 120 on 24km of highway under good conditions, turbo on 20 inch wheels

And the reverse in the morning a bit colder and head wind

 

[pm4s]

I can easily beat the 27 at 120km/h and sometimes go as low as 20kwh/100km

Not possible in real conditions unless going downhill, wind behind you, drafting, etc.
The trips you posted have an average speed of 76 & 80 km/h that is why your consumption is so low.
If I drive at a constant 120 km/h in highway traffic my average speed drops to 100 km/h by the time I reach my destination. That is not 120km/h, that is 100km/h.
Bjorn test are close to real 120 km/h average speed, he also increases speed to match GPS speed, 120 km/h in my 4S is only 115 km/h on my phone, my other Porsche does 118-119 km/h GPS when set to 120 km/h (it jumps between 120-122 km/h as it is an older cruise control unit).
The numbers Born posts are accurate in my experience with different EVs.

 

[TomekGnomek]

There is no magic in the 2025 models, just smaller/different rims/tyres/pressures/spec/weather conditions/driving style/etc.

Perhaps but I my case weather conditions and driving style is the same, the only difference is wheels. If this is only due to 20" vs 21" I would go for 20" had I known that.

You have a good point the difference in tires can grow with speed but the difference is quite noticeable in city driving as well.

 

[Yves]

Not possible in real conditions unless going downhill, wind behind you, drafting, etc.
The trips you posted have an average speed of 76 & 80 km/h that is why your consumption is so low.
If I drive at a constant 120 km/h in highway traffic my average speed drops to 100 km/h by the time I reach my destination. That is not 120km/h, that is 100km/h.
Bjorn test are close to real 120 km/h average speed, he also increases speed to match GPS speed, 120 km/h in my 4S is only 115 km/h on my phone, my other Porsche does 118-119 km/h GPS when set to 120 km/h (it jumps between 120-122 km/h as it is an older cruise control unit).
The numbers Born posts are accurate in my experience with different EVs.

How can you explain this then … Highway lots for above 120 … the average drops quite hard when you have like 5 traffic lights … 95% highway drive

 

[Yves]

Not possible in real conditions unless going downhill, wind behind you, drafting, etc.
The trips you posted have an average speed of 76 & 80 km/h that is why your consumption is so low.
If I drive at a constant 120 km/h in highway traffic my average speed drops to 100 km/h by the time I reach my destination. That is not 120km/h, that is 100km/h.
Bjorn test are close to real 120 km/h average speed, he also increases speed to match GPS speed, 120 km/h in my 4S is only 115 km/h on my phone, my other Porsche does 118-119 km/h GPS when set to 120 km/h (it jumps between 120-122 km/h as it is an older cruise control unit).
The numbers Born posts are accurate in my experience with different EVs.

Or this … lots of overtaking so 150 to 160 to get to 131 average

 

[Yves]

Not possible in real conditions unless going downhill, wind behind you, drafting, etc.
The trips you posted have an average speed of 76 & 80 km/h that is why your consumption is so low.
If I drive at a constant 120 km/h in highway traffic my average speed drops to 100 km/h by the time I reach my destination. That is not 120km/h, that is 100km/h.
Bjorn test are close to real 120 km/h average speed, he also increases speed to match GPS speed, 120 km/h in my 4S is only 115 km/h on my phone, my other Porsche does 118-119 km/h GPS when set to 120 km/h (it jumps between 120-122 km/h as it is an older cruise control unit).
The numbers Born posts are accurate in my experience with different EVs.

And one more … I find the iX and Macan quite efficient at high speed … way more then what Bjorn finds … as long as you have nice temps, as soon as it is 10C it gets worse rather quickly So him posting figures on German cars in bad conditions is a trend ;-)

 

[sor]

To be practical about it, I have yet to have range or efficiency make any meaningful difference in my trips, whether I’m driving a 220 mile rated car or a 320 mile one. I find myself stopping in the same places and same intervals regardless. It’s just nice to have more buffer and flexibility as a backup.

 

[Yves]

To be practical about it, I have yet to have range or efficiency make any meaningful difference in my trips, whether I’m driving a 220 mile rated car or a 320 mile one. I find myself stopping in the same places and same intervals regardless. It’s just nice to have more buffer and flexibility as a backup.

Indeed the range / efficiency is not about the cost of consumption . It’s about practicality … I would have loved to have a little better range, as in my case, the car can be efficient when the weather is ok, but the total range seems to be hampered by the conservative buffer the initial cars seem to have. I hope a software update will release some extra capacity … The notes in the update seem to indicate there was some adaptation in the Battery management system, to better represent the true capacity of the battery …

Sponsored