Macan 4 and others: bad range for the Macan when it’s cold

[Diego]

After 10000 km

Sponsored

 

[Diego]

I’ll be leaving for California in a couple days but unfortunately I wasn’t able to rent a Macan there… otherwise it would have been interesting to see what I can get on a different “terrain”

 

[Yves]

 

[Awaz]

@Diego bribed Porsche to get a special battery for himself

 

[Fly4ever]

@Diego bribed Porsche to get a special battery for himself

...it seems like there's also here something as in computer world called "silicon lottery"...Like not all CPUs, maybe also not all EV batteries are created equal and a small percentage are better than the rest with a handful of them being kings.Most likely @Diego has hit the jack-pot of EV battery lottery!

 

[Yves]

...it seems like there's also here something as in computer world called "silicon lottery"...Like not all CPUs, maybe also not all EV batteries are created equal and a small percentage are better than the rest with a handful of them being kings.Most likely @Diego has hit the jack-pot of EV battery lottery!

No it’s not that, it seems the 4 is pretty close to WLTP consumption and the Turbo is not … shame on Porsche … I’m certain some Turbo users would have gone for the 4 is they would have known upfront … or they could have just given the turbo a larger battery …
On the other hand the Turbo spins and slides like crazy … I just did a slide turning into a street and needed to be quick to beat the oncoming traffic, it spins the back wheels immediately and drifted in a like super controlled way the turn of 90 degrees, back wheel steering is amazing it corrects the drift and so the experience is magical …

 

[tmrqs]

!!!——BREAKING NEWS——!!!

!!!——EXCLUSIVE SHOT OF @Diego DRIVING HIS MACAN——!!!

!!!——THE TRUTH BEHIND HIS SHOCKING NUMBERS FINALLY REVEALED——!!!

Jokes aside, several factors to keep in mind:

1. Diego drives a Macan 4, his results shouldn’t (in theory) be compared with the efficiency of a Turbo
2. He drives long-ish distances and the car performs much better on longer trips than on short ones, and better at higher speeds (35-60) than slower ones (0-35)
3. Driving style and conditions obviously play a big role

Now to illustrate this, below are some of my own results on a Turbo, with temperatures right around 0 C / 32 F.

Look at distance vs speed and you’ll see what affects the efficiency.

3.1 mi/kWh is right around 20 kWh/100km - so very close to what Diego achieves.

At the other end of the range, 1.6 mi/kWh is 39 kWh/100km.

Same driver, same car… but distance and speed (and some pedal mashing) make a world of a difference.

 

[Yves]

!!!——BREAKING NEWS——!!!

!!!——EXCLUSIVE SHOT OF @Diego DRIVING HIS MACAN——!!!

!!!——THE TRUTH BEHIND HIS SHOCKING NUMBERS FINALLY REVEALED——!!!

Jokes aside, several factors to keep in mind:

1. Diego drives a Macan 4, his results shouldn’t (in theory) be compared with the efficiency of a Turbo
2. He drives long-ish distances and the car performs much better on longer trips than on short ones, and better at higher speeds (35-60) than slower ones (0-35)
3. Driving style and conditions obviously play a big role

Now to illustrate this, below are some of my own results on a Turbo, with temperatures right around 0 C / 32 F.

Look at distance vs speed and you’ll see what affects the efficiency.

3.1 mi/kWh is right around 20 kWh/100km / so very close to what Diego achieves.

At the other end of the range, 1.6 mi/kWh is 39 kWh/100km.

Same driver, same car… but distance and speed (and some pedal mashing) make a world of a difference.

I never see 20, I drive normal anticipating on 20 inch wheels … even on longer trips, the only way I see these if I do not turn on the heating otherwise, 23 - 24 on longer and 25 -27 on shorter … 0C-4C outside and heating at 21C With 20 I would be extatic … though it still is far of the WLTP, curious what +15C temps will bring … Anyway it’s already clear it will not get the same range as the iX, something I hoped for, and if I compare both WLTP’s should have been the case, even with a slide advantage for the Turbo, but it’s the other way around in reality

 

[krissrock]

I'm wondering if the cpu is just a lil wonky with this car. Usually my rides (mi/kwh) start low, and i drive well to get them up...
Today, i noticed the tire pressure read out was changed to bar on its own. Even when I confirmed the settings were for psi.
And just now, i was maybe a mile or two from my house and noticed the read out was showing 5 mi/kwh! And this is 35 degree weather... I went a total of 8 mis, and the trip ended with 3.2. Mi/kwh. Def out of the ordinary

 

[Petzi]

I am aware that we live in a time when a scientific degree and professional experience in a scientific field are met with nothing but contempt.

Otherwise, it should be clear to everyone at first glance that this ‘test’ is nonsense.

The aim seems to be to verify the car manufacturers' WLTP data in real-world conditions, but not according to the WLTP test procedure. And that under temperature conditions that are not provided for in the WLTP specifications.

It starts with the fact that the WLTP differentiates between three vehicle classes and is tested at four different speeds. There are predefined acceleration and braking cycles, etc., etc. (Read up on it: Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Procedure – Wikipedia

The test that was carried out has nothing at all to do with that. It is therefore nonsensical to compare the results.

But even with normal common sense, you have to recognise how unscientific and subjective the test is. Here, different people with their subjective driving styles drive an unknown route in an undefined time. (Even a test as superficial as this would at least require a specified driving time for a specified distance). Anyone who owns an EV knows that on some days the battery consumption is 20% higher than on others. If you are relaxed and not in heavy traffic, you simply consume less.

In addition, at least Porsche always points out that the range is reduced accordingly at very low temperatures. Basically, it just says something that everyone knows: when it's cold, the range drops.

 

[Petzi]

Range? Unimportant and the same as with the petrol engine!

I had a Macan Turbo for the past 5 years. I have covered 130,000 km and was very happy with the car. After refuelling, the PCM indicated a range of 600 km. In reality, however, it was allways only 400 km. So I ended up back at the petrol station after four hours. I payed 110 euros and drove 400 km again. I drive the same distance in the new Macan 4S (85-10), spend the same amount of time at the petrol station because I go to the toilet, have an espresso or go and eat, as I have done for years, but I pay only 45 euros for the electricity.

I don't understand the moaning at all! Porsche gave me a test car (Macan Turbo) for 24 hours before I signed a purchase contract. I wanted to test how far I could drive if I drove like I did with my petrol turbo and I wanted to know if it was fun. The answer is yes and yes.

 

[Yves]

I am aware that we live in a time when a scientific degree and professional experience in a scientific field are met with nothing but contempt.

Otherwise, it should be clear to everyone at first glance that this ‘test’ is nonsense.

The aim seems to be to verify the car manufacturers' WLTP data in real-world conditions, but not according to the WLTP test procedure. And that under temperature conditions that are not provided for in the WLTP specifications.

It starts with the fact that the WLTP differentiates between three vehicle classes and is tested at four different speeds. There are predefined acceleration and braking cycles, etc., etc. (Read up on it: Worldwide harmonized Light vehicles Test Procedure – Wikipedia

The test that was carried out has nothing at all to do with that. It is therefore nonsensical to compare the results.

But even with normal common sense, you have to recognise how unscientific and subjective the test is. Here, different people with their subjective driving styles drive an unknown route in an undefined time. (Even a test as superficial as this would at least require a specified driving time for a specified distance). Anyone who owns an EV knows that on some days the battery consumption is 20% higher than on others. If you are relaxed and not in heavy traffic, you simply consume less.

In addition, at least Porsche always points out that the range is reduced accordingly at very low temperatures. Basically, it just says something that everyone knows: when it's cold, the range drops.

Well when I drive my iX in an un scientific way I can almost reach WLTP in summer, without being a slow poke, but not racing that means 500km of the 550WLTP or 10% below …
Winter you can subtract about 20% or 400km … all on 22 inch and using heating/cooling in a normal way.

Same for the Macan, it has a WLTP of 580 … so I counted on 520 inch summer -20% in winter is 416 …
Which I can obtain on 20 inch driving super careful and not using heating … otherwise it’s more like 360 … I hold reservations till it gets warmer …

But the Porsche has a higher WLTP on 20 inch then the iX on 22 … so far the my 3 year old iX with battery degradation and 22 inch wheels gets more range, and the software functions that make the Macan look like it was developed 5 years ago …

If we talk driving fun, that is another story.

 

[Petzi]

Well when I drive my iX in an un scientific way I can almost reach WLTP in summer, without being a slow poke, but not racing that means 500km of the 550WLTP or 10% below …
Winter you can subtract about 20% or 400km … all on 22 inch and using heating/cooling in a normal way.

Same for the Macan, it has a WLTP of 580 … so I counted on 520 inch summer -20% in winter is 416 …
Which I can obtain on 20 inch driving super careful and not using heating … otherwise it’s more like 360 … I hold reservations till it gets warmer …

But the Porsche has a higher WLTP on 20 inch then the iX on 22 … so far the my 3 year old iX with battery degradation and 22 inch wheels gets more range, and the software functions that make the Macan look like it was developed 5 years ago …

If we talk driving fun, that is another story.

You are right. Macan is not best in class regarding range. But does it matter ? I think no. I did not care that my old Macan Turbo and my 911 had lower range than most other cars and I do not care now about the EV`s range.

I had a Macan Turbo for the past 5 years. I have covered 130,000 km and was very happy with the car. After refuelling, the PCM indicated a range of 600 km. In reality, however, it was allways only 400 km. So I ended up back at the petrol station after four hours. I payed 110 euros and drove 400 km again. I drive the same distance in the new Macan 4S (85-10), spend the same amount of time at the petrol station because I go to the toilet, have an espresso or go and eat, as I have done for years, but I pay only 45 euros for the electricity.

 

[Awaz]

@Petzi
Exactly.
EVs running costs are far less than the ICE, and not just fuel costs.
Even at London's electric street pole chargers, where I often charge, the ubtricity would cost me £43.70 if I were to charge, let's say, 0 to 100 (ie 95kW at £0.46), and at Ionity & Porsche chargers it would be £37.05 (ie 95kW at £0.39).
And clearly, as you mentioned, petrol will be much more expensive.
In practice, you never charge 0 to 100, so this exercise is just to find what would it cost me in an EV.

So, I didn't understand why on another thread @WINGE was dissuading me from getting an EV by saying “Without a home based EV ecosystem I would not have switched to an EV 4 years ago- makes no sense (currently) otherwise”.

 

[Petzi]

Apart from the costs, which are much, much lower than for an ICE. I don't care about the range at all! A few years ago it was important because there were few charging points, but today I can charge fully at any motorway service station in 20-30 minutes. Who wants to drive for 8 hours? Which was never possible with the ICE Porsches anyway! I want a Porsche and be able to travel sensibly. Both are possible.

Sponsored