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

[Awaz]

@Petzi
Exactly.

Charging infrastructure is far better now and will get even better.
I definitely need a toilet/coffee break etc after driving for 2–3 hrs.

Sponsored

 

[Yves]

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.

It’s not about cost for me, but practicality, for the iX, I stop 2 times to cover 1000km, one for breakfast and one for lunch and maybe a 3th for a restroom brake … Also the more you need to stop the more chances you have to wait for a free charger, another thing is that the IONOTY chargers are quite busy and they are the only ones delivering full power to really fast charge so I prefer other stations less busy but they split power so if you are unlucky you get like 300kw/2 … then efficiency becomes important. Anyway not really an issue for the moment, but I was counting on more range because of its practicality … We have a destination trip a little over 300km … with very few to no charging opportunity … so it’s clear I’ll take the iX for that and not the Macan based on my current experience.

 

[Petzi]

@Yves.
ok. of course. but 300km are no problem even in very cold conditions. my first test with a turbo gave me 340km (80-10), mostly highway av. 117km/h

 

[Yves]

@Yves.
ok. of course. but 300km are no problem even in very cold conditions. my first test with a turbo gave me 340km (80-10), mostly highway av. 117km/h

That would mean 485 on 100%, sign me up for that, never ever I’ll hit that at 130km/h (if your average is that high you need to aim for 130). I would need to test that but at 130, 360km for 100% is the max I can see thus 250 absolute max, or about 100km less range …
Can you post a screenshot of that trip?

 

[Petzi]

That would mean 485 on 100%, sign me up for that, never ever I’ll hit that at 130km/h (if your average is that high you need to aim for 130). I would need to test that but at 130, 360km for 100% is the max I can see thus 250 absolute max, or about 100km less range …
Can you post a screenshot of that trip?
[/QUOTE

I can only say three things about this: 1) Those of us who can choose between several cars are lucky. 2) The iX is not a Macan Turbo. The comparison cannot be made seriously. 3.) In general, I still don't understand why so many people are getting upset here. Porsche gives every serious prospective buyer a Turbo to test drive for at least 24 hours. If you're spending 100,000 euros, you should see for yourself that the car you're buying will meet your expectations.

 

[Ranj]

@Wivenhoe
Exactly.
As I said above, all cars were put through the same conditions.
A useful test in winter, I say.

Edit: Some even criticised my choice of getting a rear-wheel drive base model.
I'm very happy with that. When I test drove Macan 4 and now have RWD, I find no difference in the driving dynamics that the Porsche is known for. And I'm getting 300 range in winter

Temperatures in UK 1 C on 16th Jan and with a 100% Charge driving at 68 - 75 MPH 95% on a motorway on a round trip to Heathrow in Macan 4 - I just about got 200 Miles range and made it back home with 9 miles 5% battery range. So not great for a car that claims 380 plus range. I can’t understand how you are getting 300 miles in UK ?

 

[Awaz]

I can’t understand how you are getting 300 miles in UK ?

Perhaps @Diego did a magic spell on my car

 

[PrudentOcean]

I wonder how much of an impact Sport+ has on range, even when driven sensibly. My understanding is that Sport+ will heat the battery (or heat it more than other modes) for optimum performance, and this would take considerable energy.

Official range tests would be done in Normal, but for any of you or are not getting the range you're expecting, consider how the driving mode impacts range.

 

[Yves]

I can only say three things about this: 1) Those of us who can choose between several cars are lucky. 2) The iX is not a Macan Turbo. The comparison cannot be made seriously. 3.) In general, I still don't understand why so many people are getting upset here. Porsche gives every serious prospective buyer a Turbo to test drive for at least 24 hours. If you're spending 100,000 euros, you should see for yourself that the car you're buying will meet your expectations.

I compare to WLTP so the Macan Turbo on 20 inch wheels has more range then the iX on 22, in realty the iX has 50 to 100km more range
So the Macan 4 seems to be close to it’s WLTP consumption, the Turbo is not, so even if you leave out the iX the Turbo is way worse compared to the WLTP … and whilst the Turbo’s WLTP is higher then the iX it’s way lower in realty life.
I based my decision on this, knowing that a car never gets it WLTP, if Porsche had communicate the right numbers, I would not have bought the Turbo, so I feel I was mislead …
Again, this has nothing to do with the cost, hey if you buy a 150K car, the consumption is irrelevant, but for me it’s about practicality and what I’m used to …
Maybe I’ll trade in the iX for the new version and just sell the Turbo, any Takers for 120K

 

[JerShanMan39]

I must be doing something very, very, wrong.........

 

[Pitteken]

I compare to WLTP so the Macan Turbo on 20 inch wheels has more range then the iX on 22, in realty the iX has 50 to 100km more range
So the Macan 4 seems to be close to it’s WLTP consumption, the Turbo is not, so even if you leave out the iX the Turbo is way worse compared to the WLTP … and whilst the Turbo’s WLTP is higher then the iX it’s way lower in realty life.
I based my decision on this, knowing that a car never gets it WLTP, if Porsche had communicate the right numbers, I would not have bought the Turbo, so I feel I was mislead …
Again, this has nothing to do with the cost, hey if you buy a 150K car, the consumption is irrelevant, but for me it’s about practicality and what I’m used to …
Maybe I’ll trade in the iX for the new version and just sell the Turbo, any Takers for 120K

to have a better comparison with Belgian weather: here s my over all consumption of my 4:

these are figures from end sept until now... mostly highway. The lower average speed is thaniks to Antwerp traffic jams…

 

[Yves]

to have a better comparison with Belgian weather: here s my over all consumption of my 4:

these are figures from end sept until now... mostly highway. The lower average speed is thaniks to Antwerp traffic jams…

THANK YOU!
And it put my numbers in perspective …

 

[Pitteken]

I think we can pull of Diego ‘s grades when temp is increased. I ve seen figures of 18 a 19 kWh/100 With temperatures of 15 degrees outside. We just consume a lot of energy in heating. It s been freezing cold the last month. You can draw conclusions after the summer I think...

 

[Yves]

I think we can pull of Diego ‘s grades when temp is increased. I ve seen figures of 18 a 19 kWh/100 With temperatures of 15 degrees outside. We just consume a lot of energy in heating. It s been freezing cold the last month. You can draw conclusions after the summer I think...

What makes me hopeful is that we have similar consumption in similar environment, driving conditions … like 2/3 to 3/4 is highway Antwerp / Brussels … same temp same traffic … same consumption, mind you my average is mainly december - January as I had my car in October and spent 4 weeks in de shop …

 

[jkjjpc]

I have been searching for details on the test procedures since several comments criticized the test for not being standardized. I have not been able to find full details on the test procedures (such as climate settings, speed, etc.), but the full report is here.

https://www.motor.no/bil/vinterens-store-rekkeviddetest-2025/302344

I used Google Translate to be able to read the article. The cars were driven at the same time in a caravan and thus exposed to the same weather and road conditions, so that should address some of the concerns about speed and driver behavior. There were also stops for driver breaks and one stop of about an hour due to a road closure. I see this as a pretty real world test in cold weather.

While I agree with some of the criticisms of how the data were reported vs WLTP data to make the Polestar look like the "winner" and the Tesla the "loser" (we all know that Tesla overstates range) despite the fact they both traveled essentially the same distance and the Tesla has a much smaller battery, the actual distance traveled seems of interest in understanding how far these cars can go in the cold.

Below is a table of the cars tested and some details such as tires. I was interested in the difference in range between the Audi Q6 e-tron and the Macan. I suspect most, if not all, of the difference in range may be explained by differences in tires and tire sizes. I don't know the differences between the Nokian tires on the Q6 and the Michelin tires on the Macan (such as rolling resistance or even if these tires are available in the US), and presumably they are winter tires. The Q6 was on 235/60 R19 front and 255/55 R19 rear while the Macan was on 255/45 R21 front and 285/40 R21 rear tires. Those are pretty sizable differences and larger wheels/wider tires are known to affect range.

Sponsored