Range

[shawn]

I pulled this out another post because it deals with range. Specifically the range the car is telling you. My car is telling me I have 532 km (330 miles) at 93%. I know there has been discussions about mileage, accuracy during a burning in period and also, of course, other factors like weather, but generally speaking, those numbers will be lower than expected with reasons discussed. But here you can see I have something higher than expected. Much higher than seen in reviews or certainly EPA. Anyone getting this as well.? Note I have a Macan 4

 

[Awaz]

This equates to 355 miles at 100%
Now it's getting closer to Porsche's WLTP range claims.
Nice : )

 

[ferrocinque]

Well, few days ago I charged at 100%, since I had to drive for the whole day. It was telling me that I had 541 Km. but after very few Kms (probably 10) the car started showing 417 Km (temperatures around 4 centigrades, winter 21" tires, Macan 4). I charged the car in the garage, warmer than outside of course. May be that was the reason.

 

[CandianPorsche83]

I pulled this out another post because it deals with range. Specifically the range the car is telling you. My car is telling me I have 532 km (330 miles) at 93%. I know there has been discussions about mileage, accuracy during a burning in period and also, of course, other factors like weather, but generally speaking, those numbers will be lower than expected with reasons discussed. But here you can see I have something higher than expected. Much higher than seen in reviews or certainly EPA. Anyone getting this as well.? Note I have a Macan 4

That's awesome! Didn't even notice the range when you posted it in the other thread as was focused on the 3% over charge haha. What are your average speed/consumption figures?

 

[tmrqs]

How nice and toasty is your garage @shawn?

 

[shawn]

How nice and toasty is your garage @shawn?

lol..well it’s 12 C in my garage outside temp at 10 C. Pretty warm/ moderate here most of the time. Consumption is showing 22.5 kWh per hundred kilometres but it has been as low as 19 kWh/100 km and sitting at 19 - 20 most of the time. ( I am not really a lead foot)

 

[Yves]

Don’t know how you guys get that range, granted mine is a Turbo, but at 80% I get like 370km on 20 inch wheels and it is 10C for the moment … Difference in WLTP between 4 and Turbo is not that much I drive normal and with anticipation … This was after a highway trip with 100km/h average speed (so 130 when possible but also stretches less as there where lower speed limits). Never saw 400km at 80 … for that I will need to drive without heating and slow …

 

[shawn]

Don’t know how you guys get that range, granted mine is a Turbo, but at 80% I get like 370km on 20 inch wheels and it is 10C for the moment … Difference in WLTP between 4 and Turbo is not that much I drive normal and with anticipation … This was after a highway trip with 100km/h average speed (so 130 when possible but also stretches less as there where lower speed limits). Never saw 400km at 80 … for that I will need to drive without heating and slow …

Hum so far the math is consistent with mine. 13% drop 93% to 80% reduces range from 532 to 457 +/- 5 km (so kinda close). I am keeping track of actual mileage to compare for fun. What is your consumption in kWh/ 100 km? Seems like it’s about the same temperature in Belgium and BC Canada right now

PS : I promise I am not cheating except when my wife gets out and pushes

 

[Yves]

My long term consumption since start is 22.8kwh/100km … I can get it as low as 20 with no heating and b roads and as high as 28 on the highway … my iX is more efficient and has a larger battery so the range difference is about 100km, bit disappointing …

 

[shawn]

My long term consumption since start is 22.8kwh/100km … I can get it as low as 20 with no heating and b roads and as high as 28 on the highway … my iX is more efficient and has a larger battery so the range difference is about 100km, bit disappointing …

Seems like the Turbo is a hungry beast .

 

[Awaz]

Quite right, it seems Turbo is a hungry beast, and I expected that. So, I stayed away from it.
Besides, personally speaking, I couldn't justify the high price of it. But I'm happy for those who can afford it.
If mainly 'driving it normal' is mostly how a Turbo is being driven, then I don't see the point in buying a Turbo. But if some like raw power of Turbo on hand, just in case and no matter how rarely such power is used, then good for those who prefer it.
I drove both Macan 4 and the Base and never found the power of acceleration lacking. In urban areas with speed limit at 20 to 30 mph pressing down the foot slightly, I quickly reached top speed of urban areas. On open roads with higher speed limits, it did accelerate faster, just as I expected. And that is good enough for my needs.
My main priority was Porsche dynamics and a good range. We are all different, with different priorities and preferences.
Originally, my reservation was for Macan 4, but I cancelled and changed it to the base model as soon as it was announced.
Other than better range, I prefer rear-wheel drive dynamics of a car. RWD have the best turn as there is no electric motor assembly upfront, the front axle weighs less and that reduces some inherent friction from the steering.
I find the base RWD has linear acceleration, and not the constant explosion. But no slouch either on acceleration. As soon as I press the foot on throttle, the response is rapid without being jerky. On my previous BMW i4, it was jerky, especially passengers felt jerkiness, and wife hated it. This doesn’t lurch forward with a jerk.
Edit: Anyone else with base model, please share your experience.

 

[shawn]

It should be interesting to hear more about the RWD one when more are on the road. By the way, I found this cool database of all cars, including range, efficiency, etc.

https://ev-database.org/#group=vehi...00_3500&rs-c=0_5000&rs-y=2010_2030&s=1&p=0-10

Sponsored